Skip to main content

Full text of "Systematic theology : a compendium and commonplace-book designed for the use of theological students"

See other formats 


Google 



This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 

to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 

publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 
We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 

at |http: //books .google .com/I 



I 



PRESENTED BY JtiE AUTHOR, 



Dr. AUGUSTUS H. STRONG, 

17 Sblqr PUce, 
Roekartv, N.Y.' 




SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY 



I « 



• • 



r\ 



SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY 



Si Cmnpnttifttm atm CommonpIact'Soofc 



DESIGNED FOB THE USE OP 



THEOLOGICAL STUDENTS 



/ ■ 



BT 



AUGUSTUS HOPKINS STBONG, D. D., LL. D. 



AND PliOFBBSOR OF BTBIiICAL THBOLOGY IS THX 

.••••• • • • 



• • • • 



'Jl^Hl2iA& TBlbO(<Qp£dAb «UIIHART 



• •• • • • 



••• • 

• • • 

• ••• 

• • • 

• ••• 



• • • ••• 



• • • 
(• • •• 



•-• 






IN THREE VOLUMES 
VOLUME II 

THE DOCTRINE OF MAN 



PHILADELPHIA 
THE GRIFFITH & ROWLAND PRESS 

1701 Chestnut Street 



• • 4 • • • 



•• • * • • 






Cbrf^to :9>ea ^altiatori* 



' 4 

• • I. • - • 



J It' 



" Thb ete sees ohxy that which n bbiitob with it the power 
OB BBKINO." — Cicero. 

"OpENTHOn HIKE ETEB^THirC'I. IffT-^^HOi^^VONDROUS THIHOB 
OUT OP THT LAW."^}^rfAh llQ •■'16. -• '■' '• 

" Foe with thee is the PocSf atw •<» yiis • In tht light shall 
WE SEE light." — PtaOnX/i'-ff^' . ■*,';■., J 

"Fob we know in pakt, and wk phophest in part; but whbh 
that which is psbfect is ooue, that which is in PABX 
SHALL be done AWAT." — 1 CoT. IS : 9, 10. 




TABLE OF CONTEN"TS, 
VOLUME IL 



Ohafteb IV. — The Wobks of God, ob thb Exboution of thb 

DxoBBES, 871-464 

SsonoN L— Obration, 871-410 

L— Defimtion of Creation, 871-878 

n.— Proof of the Doctrine, 874-378 

1. Direct Scripture Statements, 874-877 

2. Indirect Evidence from Scripture, 877-378 

TTT- — Theories which oppose Creation, 378-391 

1, Dualism, 378-388 

2. Emanation, 883-386 

a Creation from Eternity, 386-389 

4. Spontaneous Generation, 389-891 

IV.— The Mosaic Account of Creation, 391-397 

1. Its Twofold Nature, 391-398 

2. Its Proper Interpretation, ;.. 393-897 

v.— God's End in Creation, 897-402 

1. The Testimony of Scripture, 397-398 

2. The Testimony of Reason, 898-402 

VL — Relation of the Doctrine of Creation to other Doctrines, 402-410 

1. To the Holiness and Benevolence of God, 402-408 

2. To the Wisdom and Free Will of God, 404-405 

8. To Christ as the Revealer of God, 405-407 

4. To Providence and Redemption, 407-408 

6. To the Observance of the Sabbath, 408-410 

Sbohon n. — Pbbsbbvation, 410-419 

L — Definition of Preservation, 410-411 

n. — Proof of the Doctrine of Preservation, 411-414 

1. From Scripture, 411-412 

2. FromReason, 412-414 

m. — Theories which virtually deny the Doctrine of Preserva- 
tion, 414r418 

1. Deism, 414r-415 

2. Continuous Creation, 415-418 

IV. — Remarks upon the Divine Concurrence, 418-419 

Bbotion ITT. — Pbovidbngb, 419-448 

I. — Definition of Providence, 419-420 

n. — Proof of the Doctrine of Providence, 421-427 

1. Scriptural Proof, 421-425 

2, Rational Proof, 425-427 



VUl TABLB OF CONTENTS. 

TTL — Theories opposing the Doctrine of Providence, 427-481 

1. Fatalism, 427 

2. Casualism, 427-428 

3. Theory of a merely General Providence, 428-481 

IV. — Belations of the Doctrine of Providence, 431-443 

1. To Miracles and Works of Grace, 431-438 

2. To Prayer and its Answer, 433-439 

3. ToChristian Activity, 439-441 

4. To the Evil Acts of Free Agents, 441-443 

Sbotion rV. — Good and EvUi Anokls, 443-464 

L — Scripture Statements and Intimations, 444-459 

1. As to the Nature and Attributes of Angels, 444-447 

2. As to their Number and Organization, 447-450 

8. As to their Moral Character, 450-451 

4. As to their Employments, 451-459 

A. The Employments of Good Angels, 451-454 

B. The Employments of Evil Angels, 454r-459 

n. — Objections to the Doctrine of Angels, 459-462 

1. To the Doctrine of Angels in General, 459-460 

2. To the Doctrine of Evil Angels in Particular, ... 460-462 
m. — Practical Uses of the Doctrine of Angels, 462-464 

1. Uses of the Doctrine of Good Angels, 462-468 

- 2. Uses of the Doctrine of Evil Angels, 463-464 

PART v.— ANTHROPOLOGY, OR THE DOCTRINE OF MAN, 465-664 

Chaftbb L — PreiiIMInabt, 465-513 

L— Man a Creation of God and a Child of God, 465-476 

n.— Unity of the Race, 476 483 

1. Argument from History, 477-478 

2. Argument &om Language, 478-479 

8. Argument from Psychology, 479-480 

4. Argument from Physiology, 480-488 

m. — Essential Elements of Human Nature, 483-488 

1. The Dichotomous Theory, 483-484 

2. The Trichotomous Theory, 484-488 

IV.— Origin of the Soul, 488-497 

1. The Theory of Preexistence, 488-491 

2. The Creatian Theory, 491-493 

8. The Traducian Theory, 493-497 

v.— The Moral Nature of Man, 497-513 

1. Conscience, 498-504 

2. Will, 604-513 

Chapteb n. — Thb Obiginaii State op Man, 514-532 

L— Essentials of Man's Original State, 514-523 

1. Natural Likeness to God, or Personality, 515-516 

2. Moral Likeness to God, or Holiness, 516-523 

A. The Image of God as including only Person- 
ality, ;.... 518-520 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. IX 

B. The Image of €k>d as consisting simply in 

Man's Natural Capacity for Beligion, 520-523 

n.— Incidents of Man's Original State, 523-532 

1. Results of Man's Possession of the Diyine Image, 523-525 

2. Goncomitants of Man's Possession of the Divine 

Image, 625-527 

Ist. The Theory of an Original Condition of 

Savagery, 527-531 

2nd. The Theory of Comte as to the Stages of 

Human Progress, 531-532 

Ohafteb HL — Sin, ob Man's Statb of Apostast, 533-664 

Sbotion L — Thb Law of God, 533-549 

L— Law in General, 532-536 

n.— The Law of God in Particular, 536-547 

1. Elemental Law, 536-544 

2. Positive Enactment, 544-547 

in. — Relation of the Law to the Ghraoe of God, 547-549 

Sbotion IL — Natubb of Sin, 549-573 

L— Definition of Sin, 549-559 

1. Proof, 552-557 

2. Inferences, 557-559 

n.— The Essential Principle of Sin, 559-573 

1. Sin as Sensnousness, 559-563 

2. Sin as Piniteness, 563-566 

8. Sin as Selfishness, 566-573 

Sbotion TTI. — Univbbsality of Sin, 573-582 

L — Every human being who has arrived at moral conscious- 
ness has committed acts, or cherished dispositions, con- 
trary to the Divine Law, 573-577 

XL — Every member of the human race, without exception, 
possesses a corrupted nature, which is a source of ac- 
tual sin, and is itself sin, 577-582 

SE€rnoN IV. — Ohigin of Sm in thb Pebsonal Aot of Adam, 582-593 

L — The Scriptural Account in Genesis, 582-585 

1. Its General Character not Mythical or Allegorical, 

but Historical, 582-583 

2. The Course of the Temptation, and the resulting 

Fall, 584-585 

XL — Difficulties connected with the Fall, consideied as the 

personal Act of Adam, 585-590 

1. How could a holy bemg fall ? 585-588 

2. How could God justly permit Satanic Temptation ? 588-589 

3. How could a Penalty so great be justly connected 

with Disobedience to so slight a Command ? . . . 589-590 

TTT. — Consequences of the Fall — so far as respects Adam, . . 590-593 

1. Death, 590-592 



X TABLE OF COKTENTS. 

A. Fhjsioal Death or the Separation of the Soul 

from the Body, 590-591 

B. Spiritiial Death, or the Separation of the 

Sonl from God, 591-692 

2. PositiTe and formal Ezdnsion from God's Pres- 
ence, 592-598 

SscnoM y. — iMFDTATioir OF Adam^b Sin to hib Postkkitt,. . 593-637 

Scripture Teaching as to Baoennn and Baoe-responsi- 

biUty, 593-^97 

L — Theories of Imputation, 597-628 

1. The Pelagian Theory, or Theory of Man's Natural 

Innocence, . . . . : 597-001 

2. The Arminian Theory, or Theoiy of voluntarily 

appropriated Depravity, 601-606 

8. The New-School Theory, or Theoiy of uncondem- 

nable Vitiosity, 606-612 

4. The Federal Theory, or Theory of Condemnation 

by Covenant, 612-616 

5. Theory of Mediate Imputation, or Theory of Con- 

demnation for Depravity, 616-619 

6. Augustinian Theory, or Theory of Adam's Natural 

Headship, 619^-627 

Exposition of Bom. 5 : 12-19, 625-627 

Tabular View of the various Theories of Im- 
putation, 628 

n. — Objections to the Augustinian Theory of Imputation,. 629-637 
Sbotion YL — CoNSBQiTENOBS OF Sdt TO Adam*s PoeTSBiTr, . . 637-660 

L — Depravity, 637-644 

1. Depravity Partial or Total ? 637-640 

2. AbiUty or Inability? 640-644 

n.— Guilt, 644-652 

1. Nature of Guilt, 644-647 

2. Degrees of Guilt, 648-652 

nX— Penalty, 652-660 

1. Idea of Penalty, 652-656 

2. Actual Penalty of Sin, 656-660 

Sbotion VIL— The Salvation of Infants, 660-664 

PART VL— SOTERIOLOGY, OB THE DOCTBINE OF SAL- 

VATION THBOUGH THE WORK OF CHRIST 
AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, 665-894 

Chaftkb L — Christology, or thb Redemption Wrought by 

Christ, 665-775 

Section I. — Historicaij Preparation for Redemption, 665-668 

L — Negative Preparation, in the History of the Heathen 

World, 665-666 

n. — Positive Preparation, in the History of Israel, 666-668 



TABLE OF COHTKXTS. Xi 

Saoxiosr IL— Thb Tmaaam of Ohbibt, 66^700 

L — Historical Snrvej <xf Yiews respectiiig the Ponon of 

Christ, 6G»-e73 

L The £bkHiite8» 6G»-e70 

5. TheDooetadi 670 

a TheAriaofl, 670 

4. The ApollinTtoH, 670-671 

6. The Xestorians, 671-672 

& The Entjchiaoflb 672 

7. The Orthodox Doctrine, 673 

IL— The two Katnree of COirist,— their Bealiiy and Integ- 
rity, 67^-683 

L The Hmnaniiy of Ghzist, 673-681 

A. IteBeefitj, 673-675 

B. Ifei Integrity, 675-681 

2. The Deity of Christ, 681-683 

nr, — The Union of the two Katuree in one Person, 683-700 

1. Proof of this Union. 684-686 

2. Modem Misrepreeentations of this Union, 686-691 

A. The Theoiy of Gess and Beeoher, that the 

Humanity of Christ is ft Contracted and 
Metamorphoeed Deity, 686-688 

B. The Theory of Domer and Bothe, that the 

Union between the Dirine and the Hnman 
Natures is not eompleled by the Incamft- 

tingAct, 68a-691 

a The Beal Nature of this Union, 691-7(M 

SftonoK in. — The Two Statis of Chkibt, 701-710 

L— The State of Humiliation, 701-706 

L The Nature of Christ's Humiliation, 701-704 

A. The Theory of Thomasius, DeUtzsdh, and 

Crosby, that the Humiliation consisted in 

the Surrender of the Belative Attributes, 701-708 

B. The Theory that the Humiliation consisted 

in the Surrender of the Independent Ex* 

ercise of the Diyine Attributes, 708-704 

2. The Stages of Christ's Humiliation, 704-706 

Exposition of Philippians 2 : 5-9, 705-706 

n. — The State of Exaltation, 706-710 

1. The Nature of Christ's Exaltation, 706-707 

2. The Stages of Christ's Exaltation, 707-710 

Skotion rV. — The Offigbs op Chbist, 710-776 

L The Prophetic Office of Christ, 710-713 

1. The Nature of Christ's Prophetic Work, 710-711 

2. The Stages of Christ's Prophetic Work, 711-713 

IL The Priestly Office of Christ, 713-775 

1. Christ's Sacrificial Work, or the Doctrine of the 

Atonement, 718-773 



XU TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

(General Statement of the Doctrine 713-716 

A. Bcriptural Methods of Representing the Atone- 

ment, 716-722 

B. The Institution of Sacrifice, espedall j as found 

in the Mosaic System, 722-728 

0. Theories of the Atonement, 728-766 

1st The Socinian, or Example Theory of 

the Atonement, 728-738 

2d. The Bnshnellian, or Moral-Influence 

Theory of the Atonement^ 783-740 

8d. The Qrotian, or CbYemmental Theory 

of the Atonement^ 740-744 

4th. The Lrviugian Theory, or Theory of 

gradually extirpated Depravity, .... 744-747 
5th. The Anselmic, or Oommercial Theory 

of the Atonement, 747-750 

eth. The Ethical Theory of the Atonement, 750-766 
First, The Atonement as related to 

Holiness in God, 751-754 

Exposition of Bomans 8 : 25, 26, . . 758-754 
Secondly, The Atonement as related 

to Humanity in Christ, 754-766 

Exposition of 2 Corinthians 5 : 21, 760-761 

D. Objections to the Ethical Theory of the Atone- 

ment, 766-771 

E. The Extent of the Atonement, 771-778 

2. Christ's Intercessory Work, 773-776 

m— The Kingly Office of Christ, 775-776 



SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY. 

YOLUME IL 



OHAPTEE IV. 
THE WOHES OF QOD ; OB THE EXECUTION OF THE DEOBEES. 



SECnOK I. — CBEATIOK. 

L Definition of Gbbation. 

By creation we mean that free act of the triune God by which in the 
beginning for his own glory he made, without the use of preexisting mate- 
rials, the whole visible and invisible universe. 

Creation is designed origination, by a transcendent and personal Gk)d, 
of that which itself is not God. The universe is related to €k)d as our own 
volitions are related to ourselves. They are not ourselves, and we are 
greater than they. Creation is not simply the idea of God, or even the 
plan of God, but it is the idea externalized, the plan executed ; in other 
words, it implies an exercise, not only of intellect, but also of will, and this 
will is not an instinctive and unconscious will, but a will that is personal 
and free. Such exercise of will seems to involve, not self -development, but 
self-limitation, on the part of Qod ; the transformation of energy into 
force, and so a begpuming of time, with its finite successions. But, what- 
ever the relation of creation to time, creation makes the universe wholly 
dependent upon God, as its originator. 

F. H. Johnson, in Andover Rev., March, 1891 : 280, and What is Reality, 28S—** Creation 
is desiimed oriirination. . . . Men never could have thought of Ood as the Creator of 
the world, were it not that they had first known themselves as creators.** We a^ree 
with the doctrine of Hazard, Man a Creative First Cause. Man creates ideas and voli- 
tions, without use of pre^xistingr material. He also indirectly, througrh these ideas 
and volitions, creates brain-modifications. This creation, as Johnson has shown, is 
without hands, yet elaborate, selective, progressive. Schopenhauer : " liatter is noth- 
ing more than causation ; its true being is its action.*' 

Prof. C. L. Herrick, Denison Quarterly, 1S96:248, and Psychological Review, March, 
1809, advocates what he calls dvnonnism^ which he regards as the only alternative to a 
materialistic dualism which posits matter, and a Ood above and distinct from matter. 
He claims that the predicate of reality can apply only to energy. To speak of energy as 
retldino in something is to introduce an entirely Incongruous concept, for it continues 
our guest ad infinitum, ** Force," he sajrs, '* is energy under resistance, or self-limited 
energy, for all parts of the universe are derived from the energy. Energy manifesting 
itself under self -conditioning or differential forms is force. The change of pure energy 
into force is creation — the introduction of resistance. The progressive complication of 
this interference is evolution — a form of orderly resolution of energy. Substance is 
pure spontaneous energy. God's substance is his energy —the infinite and inezhaust- 
fble store of spontaneity which makes up his being. The form which self-limitation 

871 




372 THE WOKKS OF GODl 

jy&P TM W M op^rti aaiwtBiMK, in r«TC«iiBf it ia force, is not God, 

^iW^jmM Uk attrfljiot«» of ipontuMns j and cBiTcrafthty. thoosk it 

WjMA v«^ tp^ftk of oMTyj M iMf-ftamtod, v« iiapij UBp«7 that ^ontaaeity ii inteiU- 

IpSAt. Tb^ trim of fK>l'» «:!« if lilc bErimr. TtKT« it no <i9ik« i0MUrkw or ertnmca, wUch 

tf^ifn btoi ofk. We mart ncrjtgt&m in tiie sooroe wImi appears in tbe ootcome. We 

<an «p««kof o/icrVitf^. trntorHof in4«tt«cctaHMtfaUe,foliitniMe^ Tbe Unfrcne ii bat 

tbe pmrxitd expression of an infinite God.** 

Onr Tjev of crwtioo If §o nwrir tikat of LflCae, thai we here coodeoae Tte Bkoehe't 
fCatetneirt of Ilia phiioaopbj: **Thinci are concreted lawB of actioo. If the idea of befn^ 
Buft ia#::lude permanence aa vefl aa aetirit j, we mist tmj tiaat onlr tl»e personal tmlj 
if. Ail eawr if flow and proMaa. We can interpret ootok«7 only froaatlie side of per- 
f^^naiicj. Fo«fit>ilit7 of interaction reqaires the dependence of the Botiiallr related 
marij of the ffntem nfioo an all-emtvacinf , coordinating O-ne^ The finite is a mode or 
ph^rn/zfueo^jo of tlie One Beinir. Mere things are only modes of tntr^uii^ of the One. 
i^t-^fMrnf^AM pvww^amMtkm are created, posited, and depend on the One in a different 
war, InUsructUfa of thlnip if immanent acticn of the One, which the p ete ei i lu g mind 
fnt^rrprets aa caiuaL Beal interaction is poasfble onlj bcfe c u tlie Infinite and the 
cnditiE^ ftnlie« U e., self-<XfDScioufl persons. The finite is not a part of the Infinite^ nor 
«U03it it partly exhaust the stulf of the Infinite. The One, by an act of freedom, posits 
the manjr, and tlxr many hare their grtftiod and unity in the WHl and Thoaglit of the 
One. tUAtt the finite and the Infinite are free and intelligent. 

" i^,inu:h if nrK an extra-mental reality, tui gtnerit^ nor an order of relaticMw amoiv 
reaiiti««, but a form of dynamic appearance, the ground of which is the fixed oideriy 
cijanfr«s in reality, ^t time is the form of chanire, the subjective interpretatioo of 
Uincyum yet succesf ive chanmu in r^sdity. So far as God is the sroond of the world- 
prtM^im, be is in time. $V> far as he transcends the wortd-proceas in his aelf-conscioiis 
penk/nalitjr, be is not in time. Motion too is the subjective interpretation of changes 
In tliinfri, which changes ere determined by tbe demands of the world-system and the 
purprjse being realLv:d in it. Not atomism, but dj-namism, is the truth. Physloal 
piienomena are referable t/i tiK activity of the Infinite, which activity is given a 
suMtantive character because we think under tbe form of substance and attribute. 
M«^;lianfsm is cftmimtiXAfs with teleology. Mechanism is universal and is necessary to all 
syf tem. Hut it is liiniU^d by purpose, and by the possible appearance of any new law, 
f or*3<;, or ntit of f re#ylom. 

^ The Sf #ul is nrit a f unrrti^m of material activities, but is a true reality. The system 
in such tkiat it can admit new factors, and the soul is one of these possible new ftotors. 
Thtf; ff^ul Is crvAted as substantial reality, in contrast with other elements of the sys- 
ti;m, which are only phenomenal manifestations of the One Beality. The relation 
Uftwt^Tti mml ami Uidy Is tluit of interaction between the soul and the universe, the 
tKjdy fjeing tiwt part of the universe which stands in closest relation with tlie soul 
( venruji IlnuUey, who hokls that * Ixxly and soul alike are phenomcaial arrangements, 
m^ithcr one of which has any title U> fact which is not owned by the other ' ). Thousrht 
is a knowU^lge of reality. Wc must assume an arljustmcDt between subject and object. 
This amumi^ion is found€;rl on the p<i8tulate of a morally perfect God.'* To Lotze, 
then, th<5 only real ^.Tfiation is tliat of finite personalities, — matter being only a mode 
of tlie divine m^'tivlty. Htre Ixitzo, Microcosmos, and Philosophy of Religion. Bowne, 
in his Mfftaphysics and his Philosophy of Theism, is the best expositor of Lotze's system. 

In further explanation of our definition we remark that 

( a ) (Creation in not ** prrxlnction out of nothing," aa if " nothing " were 
a Hubntance out of wliich "something" could be formed. 

Wo do not n.*Karrl the drx;trine of Creation as bound to the use of the phrase "creation 
out of nothing," and as standing or falling with It. The phrase is a philosophical one, 
for whl(!h we have no Hcrii>tural warrant, and it is obJ€K;tionable as intimating that 
** nothing '* can it8«jlf Ikj an object of thought and a source of being. Tbe germ of truth 
intended to Im conveyiyl in it can better bo expressed in tho phrase ** without use of 
prdUlstlng materials." 

( 6 ) CnMition in not a faHhioning of preexisting materials, nor an emana- 
tion from tlio HubHtatiro of Do.liy^ but is a making of that to exist which 
once did not <.'xiHt, (^tlior in form or substance. 



DEFINITION OF CREATION. 373 

There is nothing diviDe in creation but the orifrination of substanoo. FashloninK is 
competent to the creature also. Gassendi said to Descartes that God's creation, if he 
is the author of forms but not of substances, is only that of the tailor who clothes a 
man with his apparel. But substance is not necessarily material. We are to conceive 
of it rather after the analogry of our own ideas and volitions, and as a manifestation of 
spirit. Creation is not simply the thougrht of God, nor even the plan of God, but rather 
^e extemalization of that thought and the execution of that plan. Mature is ** a great 
sheet let down from God out of heaven,*' and containing ** nothing that is common or 
unclean ; " but nature is not God nor a part of God, any more than our ideas and voli- 
tions are ourselves or a part of ourselves. Nature is a partial manifestation of God, 
but it does not exhaust God. 

(c) Creation is not an instinctive or necessary process of the divine 
natore, bat is the tree act of a rational will, put forth for a definite and 
sufficient end. 

Creation is different in kind from that eternal process of the divine nature in virtue 
of which we speak of generation and proceasion. The Son is begotten of the Father, 
and is of the same essence ; the world is created without preexisting material, is differ- 
ent from God, and is made by God. Begetting is a necessary act ; creation is the act of 
God's free grace. Begetting is eternal, out of time ; creation is in time, or with time. 

Studia Biblica, 4:148—** Creation is the voluntary limitation which God has imposed 
on himself. ... It can only be regarded as a creation of free spirits. ... It is a form of 
almighty power to submit to limitation. Creation is not a development of God, but 
a droumsoription of God. . . . The world is not the expression of God, or an ema- 
nation from God, but rather his self- limitation." 

(d) Creation is the act of the triune God, in the sense that all the persons 
of the Trinity, themselves uncreated, have a part in it — the Father as the 
originating, the Son as the mediating, the Spirit as the realizing cause. 

That all of Gk>d's creative activity is exercised through Christ has been sufficiently 
proved in our treatment of the Trinity and of Christ's deity as an element of that 
doctrine ( see pages 310, 311 ). We may here refer to the texts which have been previously 
considered, namely, John 1 : 3^ 4 — "ill tUngs wore made throngh him, and irithoat him ms not anjthing 
nada. That which hath bean mads ms lift in him"; 1 Cor. 8:6— "one Lord, Jeans Christ, through whom are all 
things"; CoL 1:16— "all things haye been oreated through him, andnntohim"; Eeb. 1:10— "Thoa,L(dl, inthe 
ttyMffle hast laid the fbondation of the earth, and the hearens are the works of thj hands." 

The work of the Holy Spirit seems to be that of completing, bringing to perfection. 
We can understand this only by remembering that our Christian knowledge and love 
are brought to their consummation by the Holy Spirit, and that he is also the principle 
of our natural self-consciousness, uniting subject and object in a subject-object. If 
matter is conceived of as a manifestation of spirit, after the idealistic philosophy, then 
the Holy Spirit may be regarded as the perfecting and realizing agent in the external- 
ization of the divine ideas. While it was the Word though whom all things were made, 
the Holy Spirit was the author of life, order, and adornment. Creation is not a mere 
manufacturing,— it is a spiritual act. 

John Caird, Fundamental Ideas of Christianity, 1 : 120 — '* The creation of the world 
cannot be by a Being who is external. Power presupposes an object on which it is 
exerted. 129 — There is in the very nature of God a reason why he should reveal him- 
self In. and communicate himself to, a world of finite existences, or fulfil and realize 
himself in the being and life of nature and man. His nature would not be what 
it is if such a world did not exist; something would bo lacking to the completeness of 
the divine being without it. 144 — Even with respect to human thought or intelligence. 
It Is mind or spirit which creates the world. It is not a ready-matie world on which 
we look ; in perceiving our world wo make it. 153-154 — Wo make progress as we cease 
to think our own thoughts and become media of the universal Intelligence." While 
we accept Caird's idealistic interpretation of creation, we dissent from his intimation 
that creation is a necessity to God. The trini tarian being of God renders him sufficient 
to himself, even without creation. Yet those very trinitarian relations throw light 
upon the method of creation, since they disclose to us the order of all the divine activ- 
ity. On the definition of Creation, see Shedd, History of Doctrine, 1 : 11. 



374 THE WORE3 or gool 

IL Fboot or THE Docncn or 




Crenlioa is a tnxlh of wbidi nftov aaenee or nmaa eHmoi fol^ 

of ocigizMb. Beafloa caniKii ahsohrtriy di i |j g m e tiie efeemilj of matteE. 
For pvoof of tbe doctriae of Cratian, theRCace, we relj viioDtj' tsptm 
Scripiiize. Scripioie sapplemaito unfiirf, and raidess ila eqilBiialKHi of 
the nmrcffBe eompleie. 

DmBunond, fn taii Xatiml Lav Id the S^MrmI World. < 
tMctMtred artjcjca," and the ithiiiiiarti m of eacriy. prore the 
the InrMble. See the aiae doctrine propoanded tai **Tbe Ui 
CbariesLjrea telle or: *- Gcofcvr is the einolAQvfaphy <4 thaeaith.— but UteallaDlo- 
blfj^rmftOtm, it does not go back to the hrytimtng" HopkhHi. Tale Lectinrei oo the 
Scrlpcoral Viewof Hen: ** There If aocfainr 4 priori agafaHt the ctcmttr of matter." 
WanUaw. S7il.TtaerjL.S:e— **We cenaoc f orm aaj dft«iDct mi e pchai of craattoa 
oat of nothing. The vcrj idea of it mlffat nerer have occmi e d to the hIihI of mib. 
had it not been traditfcyiiaUr bended down at a part of the or%taHl w e iathat to the 
parente of the race.** 

Hartmann. the German pfailosopfaer, gom bach to the iw%tnal ciemenfei of the vnl- 
verK. and then airs tliat acience staoda petrifled before the qiaatiiwi ot their otigiDv as 
before a Medoaa'a head. But in the preaeoce of prohfeenML eijn Domer, the dntj of 
atrience is not petrifaction, but aokution. This la pecuUarlj tme. If a c ien ee ii» aa 
Hartmann thinks, a complete explanation of the onirerBe. Sinee acienoe. br her own 
acknowledgment, furnishes no such explanation of the origin of thinga. the Seilpiui a 
revelation with regard to creation meets a demand of human reason, bj •^'^■^ 41^ 
one fact without which acience moat fore^^er be deroid of the higheat unitr and i 
alitj. For adTocacy of the etemit j of matter, aee Slartlneau, Bm^a* 1 : 157-11 

E. H. Johnson, fn Andovcr Beriew. Sox. ISl zSOStq^ and Dea Un:ae ag., 
that erolution can be traced backward to more and more simple rlwnent ^ to : 
without motion and with no quality but being. Xow make It still bmx« ritaipto bj 
divesting it of existence, and you get back to the necessitr of a Ckestor. An "-aiii^^ 
number of past stages is impossible. There is no infinite number. Somewhere then 
must be a beginning. We grant to Dr. Johnson that the only alternative to eiea 
tion is a materialistic dualism, or an eternal matter which Is the product of the divine 
mind and wilL The theories of dualism and of creation from eternity we shall dlaoiai 
hereafter. 

1. Direct Scripture Statemfnts. 

A. Genenjs 1 : 1 — " In the beginning God created the heaTcn and the 
earth. ** To this it has been objected that the verb K73 does not n o c o uB ari ly 
denote prodnction without the nse of preexisting materials (see Qen. 1 :27 
— " God created man in his own image " ; c/. 2 : 7 — " the Lord Qod formed 
man of the dnst of the gpxnmd '* ; also Pb. 51 : 10 — " Create in me a dean 
heart"). 

** In the first two chapters of GenosiB i03 is aaed(l) of the creation of the mdvefse 
(1:1); (2)of the creation of the great aea monsters (1:21); (3)of the creation of man 
rl : 27 ). Everywhere else we read of G od*8 making, as from an already created subetanoe, 
the firmament (1:7), the sun, moon and stars (1:11), the brute creation (l:2S); or of his 
/r#rm(n(; the beasts of the field out of the ground (2:19); or, lastly, of his building up 
into a woman the rib he had taken from man (2:22, margin)"— quoted from Bible Oom^ 
1 : ZL Guyot, Creation, 30 ~ ** Barn is thus reserved for marking the first introduction 
of each of the throe great spheres of existence — the world of matter, the world of Ufa, 
and the spiritual world represented by man.'^ 

We grant, in reply, that the argument for absolute creation derived from 
the mere word in3 is not entirely conclasiv& Otlier Ci>n8iderations in 
connection with the use of this word, however, seem to render this inter- 



PROOF OP THE DOCTBIKX OP CBEATIOK. 875 

pretation of G^n. 1 : 1 the most plausible. Some of these oonsiderations 
we proceed to mentioiL 

(a) While we acknowledge that the verb K^3 " does not necessarily or 
inTariablj denote production without the use of preexisting materials, we 
still maintain that it signifies the production of an effect for which no nat- 
ural antecedent existed before, and which can be only the result of divine 
Rgencj." For this reason, in the Eal spedes it is used only of Qod, and is 
never accompanied by any accusative denoting materiaL 

No aoouflatlve denoting material follows bora, in the paasases Indiosted, for the reason 
that all thought of material was absent. See DiUmann, Genesis, 18; Oehler, Theol. 
O. T., 1 : 177. The quotation in the text above is from Green, Hebrew Chrestomathy^ 
B7. But B. G. Boblnson, Christian Theology, 88, remarks: ** Whether the Scriptures 
teach the absolute origination of matter— its creation out of nothing— is an open 
question. ... No decisive evidence is furnished by the Hebrew word bank" 

A moderate and scholarly statement of the facts is furnished by Professor W. J. 
Beeober, in S. S. Times, Dec. 23, 1806:807—*' To create is to originate divinely. • . . Cre- 
ation, in the sense in which the Bible uses ^e word, does not exclude the use of mate- 
rials previously existing ; for man was taken from the ground ( Oo, 8:7), and woman 
was builded from the rib of a man (8:B). Ordinarily Qod brings things into existence 
through the operation of second causes. But it is possible, in our thinking, to with- 
draw attention from the second causes, and to think of anything as originating simply 
from God, apart from second causes. To think of a thing thus is to think of it as 
created. The Bible speaks of Israel as created, of the promised prosperity of Jerusalem 
as created, of the Ammonite people and the king of Tyre as created, of persons of any 
date in history as created (It. 43: 1-15; 65:18; kM: 80; 28:13.15; Fll(n:18; lod. 18:1; lUL 8:10). 
Miracles and the ultimate beginnings of second causes are necessarily thought of as 
creative acts ; all other originating of things may be thought of, according to the pur- 
pose we have in mind, either as creation or as effected by second causes.'* 

(6) In the account of the creation, K13 seems to be distinguished from 
rrt^^, ** to make " either with or without the use of abreadj existing material 
(nite^I^S K^3y <* created in making" or *'made by creation," in 2:8; and 
^V!\» of the firmament, in 1 : 7), and from lY^, " to form " out of such mate- 
riaL ( See K^S^l, of man regarded as a spiritual being, in 1 : 27 ; but *^y!l, 
of man regarded as a physical being, in 2 : 7.) 

See Conant, Genesis,!; Bible Com., 1:37— ** 'created to make MlnOen. 8:8) « created 
out of nothing, in order that he might make out of It all the works recorded in the six 
days.*' Over against these texts, however, we must set others in which there appears 
no accurate distinguishing of these words from one another. Bora is used in Oen. 1 : 1, 
OBOh in 6«B. 8: i of the creation of the heaven and earth. Of earth, both yalzar and 
OMili are used in Ii. 46: 1& In regard to man, in 6eiLi:87 we find hara; in Ota. 1 : 88 and 9 : 
8, aaah; and in Ckn. 8 : 7, uotzor. In Ii. 43 : 7, all three are found in the same verse: "vhom 
I luT* Zxirafar mj glory, I lure ytUaar^ yea, I lure cuo/i him." In It. 45 : 18, " asah the earth, and hara 
man apon ik"; but in Oen. 1 : 1 we read: "God hara the earth," and in 9 : 6 ^^aadh bud.** Ii. 44 : 8~ 
"the lord that OM^ thee ( i.e., man) and votzor thee"; but In Oen.!: 27, God** bora bud.** 6en.5:8 
— "Bula and fbauk bara he theBL" 6en.8:28— "theribosoTiheawoiDan"; 6en.8:7— "heyatEorflUB**; 
<.e., bora male and female, yet ascth the woman and yatzar the man. ABOhig not 
always used for transform: h» 41 : 80 — "fir-tree^ piDe,box-trBe" in nature— bona; hiGlriO— 
**harai^ me a dean heert" ; It. 65 :18— God ** bora JeroMlem iDtoarqJotdBg.*' 

( c) The context shows that the meaning here is a making without the 
nse of preexisting materials. Since the earth in its rude, unformed, chaotic 
condition is still called '*the earth" in verse 2, the word K^3 in verse 1 
cannot refer to any shaping or fashioning of the elements, but must signify 
the calling of them into being. 



376 THE WOBKS OF GOD. 

Oehler, Theology of O.T^ 1:177 ~*' By the absolute berouhith, 'ii tke bagiBBiBs,' the 
divine creation Is fixed as an absolute beginning-, not as a workinjr on something that 
already existed.*' Ywm 8 cannot be the beginniuK of a history, for it begins with 'and.' 
Delitzsoh says of the expression * tht «u11i ms vithoat fom and Toid ' : ** From this it is evident 
that the void and formless state of the earth was not uncreated or without a beginning. 
... It is evident that 'the hmrm aadaarth ' as Ood created them in the beginning were not 
the well-ordered universe, but the world in its elementary form." 

{d) The fact that K^3 may have had an original signification of ''catting," 
<' forming," and that it retains this meaning in the Piel conjugation, need 
not prejudice the conclusion thus reached, since terms expressive of the 
most spiritual processes are derived from sensuous roots. If K^3 does not 
signify absolute creation, no word exists in the Hebrew language that can 
express this idea. 

( 6 ) But this idea of production without the use of preexisting materials 
unquestionably existed among the Hebrews. The later Scriptures show 
that it had become natural to the Hebrew mind. The possession of this 
idea by the Hebrews, while it is either not found at all or is very dimly 
and ambiguously expressed in the sacred books of the heathen, can be 
best explained by supposing that it was derived from this early revelation 
in Qenesia 

B. H. Johnson, Outline of Syst. TheoL, 04— "Ron. 4 : 17 tells us that the faith of Abra- 
ham, to whom God had promised a son, grasped the fact that Qod calls into existence 
* tlMtUBgi tk&t an not' This may be accepted as Paul's interpretation of the first verse of 
the Bible." It is possible that the heathen had occasional glimpses of this truth, 
though with no such clearness as that with which it was held In IsraeL Perhaps we 
may say that through the perversions of later nature-worship something of the origi- 
nal revelation of absolute creation shines, as the first writing of a palimpsest appears 
faintly through the subsequent script with which It has been overlaid. If the doctrine 
of absolute creation is found at lUl among the heathen, it is greatly blurred and 
obscured. No one of the heathen books teaches it as do the sacred Scriptures of the 
Hebrews. Tet it seems as if this ^ One accent of the Holy Ghost The heedless world 
has never lost.** 

Bib. Com., 1 : 81 —"Perhaps no other ancient langruage, however refined and philo- 
sophical, could have so clearly distinguished the different acts of the Maker of all things 
[as the Hebrew did with Its four difTerent words], and that because all heathen philos- 
ophy esteemed matter to be eternal and uncreated.** Prof. B. D. Burton: "Brah* 
manism, and the original religion of which Zoroastrianlsm was a reformation, were 
Bastem and Western divisions of a primitive Aryan, and probably monotheistic, 
religion. The Vedas, which represented the Brahmanism, leave it a question whence the 
world came, whether from Ood by emanation, or by the shaping of material eternally 
existent. Later Brahmanism is pantheistic, and Buddhism, the Bef ormation of Brah- 
manism, is atheistic.'* See Shedd, Dogm. TheoL, 1:471, and Moehelm's references in 
Cudworth's Intellectual System, 8 : 140. 

We are inclined still to hold that the doctrine of absolute creation was known to no 
other ancient nation besides the Hebrews. Becent investigations, however, render 
this somewhat more doubtful than it once seemed to be. Sayce, Hibbert Lectures, 142, 
143, finds creation among the early Babylonians. In his Beligions of Ancient Egypt 
and Babylonia, 872-397, he says : ** The elements of Hebrew cosmology are all Babylon- 
ian; even the creative word itself was a Babylonian conception ; but the spirit which 
inspires the cosmology is the antithesis to that which inspired the cosmology of Baby- 
lonia. Between the polytheism of Babylonia and the monotheism of Israel a gulf is 
fixed which cannot be spanned. So soon as we have a clear monotheism, absolute 
creation is a corollary. As the monotheistic Idea is corrupted, creation gives place to 
pantheistic transformation." 

It is now claimed by others that Zoroastrianism, the Yedas, and the religion of the 
andent Bgyptians had the idea of absolute creation. On creation in the Zoroastrian 
system, see our treatment of Dualism, page 883. Yedic hymn in Rig Veda, 10 : 9, 
quoted by J. F. Clarke, Ten Great Beligions, 2 : 306 — ** Originally this universe was soul 



PROOF OF THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION. 377 

onlj ; nothing- else whatsoever existed, active or inactive. He thought : * I will create 
worlds ' ; thus he created these various worlds : earth, light, mortal being, and the 
waters.** Renouf , Hibbert Lectures, 216-282, speaks of a papyrus on the staircase of the 
British Museum, which reads : ** The great Gkxi, the Lord of heaven and earth, who 
made all things which are . . . the almighty Ood, self-existent, who made heaven and 
earth ; • • . the heaven was yet uncreated, uncreated was the earth ; thou hast put 
together the earth ; . . . who made all things, but was not made/* 

But the Egyptian religion in its later development, as well as Brahmanism, was pan- 
theistic and it is possible that all the expressions we have quoted are to be interpreted, 
not as indicatinjr a belief in creation out of nothing, but as asserting emanation, or the 
taking on by deity of new forms and modes of existence. On creation in heathen sys- 
tems, see Pierret, Mythologie, and answer to it by Maspero ; Hymn to Amen-Rha, in 
** Records of the Past " ; Q. C. Mtlller, Literature of Greece, 87, 88 ; George Smith, Chal- 
dean Genesis, chapters 1, 8, 6 and ; Dillmann, Com. on Genesis, 6th edition. In trod., 5- 
10: LeNormant, Hist. Ancienne de 1* Orient, 1 : 17-26 ; 5 : 238 ; Otto ZOckler, art. : Sch{5p- 
f ung, in Herzog and Plitt, Encydop.; S. B. Gould, Origin and DevcL of Relig. Beliefs, 
281-292. 

B. Hebrews 11:3 — " By faith we nnderstand that the worlds have been 
framed by the word of Gk)d, so that what is seen hath not been made out 
of things which appear" = the world was not made out of sensible and 
preexisting material, but by the direct fiat of omnipotence ( see Alford, and 
Liinemann, Meyer's Com. in loco). 

Compare 2 Maccabees 7 : 28 — c{ ovc ovrwv inoiri<rtv aina & ecoc. This the Vulgate trans- 
lated by "quia ex nihilo fecit ilia Deus," and from the Vulgate the phrase '* creation 
out of nothin^r** is derived. Hedge, Ways of the Spirit, points out that Wisdom 11 : 17 
has e{ ati6p^K)v vAi|f , interprets by this the c{ ovc bvrutv in 2 Maccabees, and denies that 
this last refers to creation out of nothing. But we must remember that the later 
Apocryphal writings were composed under the influence of the Platonic philosophy; 
that the passage in Wisdom may be a rationalistic interpretation of that in Maccabees ; 
and that even if it were independent, we are not to assume a harmony of view in the 
Apocrypha. 2 Maccabees 7 :28 must stand by itself as a testimony to Jewish belief in 
creation without use of preexisting material, — belief which can be traced to no other 
source than the Old Testament Scriptures. Compare b. 34 : 10— " I viU do manrels saeh u hare 
not been wron^ht [ marg. 'created '] in all the earth " ; lorn. 16 : 30 — "if Jehorah make a neir thing" [ marg. 
'create a creation"]; Ia.4:5—"JehoTah will create... a elood and smoke"; 41:20— "the E0I7 One of Israel hath 
ereated it" ; 45:7, 8 — "I form the light, and create darkness" ; 57: 19— "I create the firnit of theUps" ; 65:17— 
" I create mnr hearens and a new earth" ; Jer. 31 : 22— " Jehorah hath ereated a new thing.'* 

Eom. 4:17 — " God, who giretii life to the dead, and ealleth the things that an not, as though thej were"; i Ow. 
1 :28— "things that an not" [did God choose] "thathe might bring to naught the things that an" ; 2 Oor. 
4:6—" God, that said, Light shall shine out of darkness " — created light without preexisting nuite- 
rial,— for darkness is no material; Ooll: 16, 17— "in him wen all things enated .... and he is 
befon all things"; so also Ps. 33: 9— "he spake, and it was done"; 148:5 — "he commanded, andthej wen 
created." See Philo, Creation of the World, chap. 1-7, and Life of Moses, book 8, chap. 
86— **He produced the most perfect work, the Cosmos, out of non-existence (rod ftij 
oKTov ) into being ( ei« rh tlvai )." E. H. Johnson, Syst. Theol., M — "We have no reason 
to believe that the Hebrew mind had the idea of creation out of invUrCble materials. 
But creation out of vUfible materials is in lebnws 11 : 3 expressly denied. This text is 
therefore equivalent to an assertion that the universe was made without the use of any 
preexisting materials." 

2. Indirect evidence from Scripture. 

(a) The -pa/st duration of the world is limited ; ( 6 ) before the world 
began to be, each of the persons of the Gk>dhead already existed ; ( c ) the 
origin of the universe is ascribed to God, and to each of the persons of the 
Godhead. These representations of Scripture are not only most consistent 
with the view that the universe was created by God without use of preex- 
isting material, but they are inexplicable upon any other hyx>othe8is. 



378 THE WORKS OF OOD. 

(a) lUrkl8:19--"fraBtkebiKiBBi]if of ttacniitio&irUAMorMtedaBmMv";^ 
vorldms"; lpk.l:4— "bafon thefoondatioiiortkt vorU." (b) Fl90:2— "Brfflnthewnmtauuvwebmigkt 
forth, Or eTtr thea kidst ftnaad tho «ortk and tta vorld, Iras fnn •TorlutiAg to OTtrlutiBg tkoa art God" ; Fkvr. 
8:23 — "IvufetapJbmoTirlutiiig, from tke bapuias, Ukn tkooortk vu"; Joknl:l— "Ib tko btginiif 
vMtiMWord"; GoLl:i7— ''Iw it boforiaUtkiagi"; lob. 9:14— *'thootanul Spirit'* (see Tholuck, Oonu 
inloco). (c)lpb.8:9~''6odwhoflrMtodaUthiB«i"; Eom. 11:36— "of kia .... anaUthiagt"; 1 Oor. 
8:6— "onoGod, tkoFkihor, ofirkonanalltkingf . . . ono Lord, Joioi Christ tluoofk wbom an all tUagi *' ; Johi 
1:3 — ''aUthliigfvm]Badothroagkkl]D";CoLl:16— "inkimvmaUtUBgior^ . . . aU tUsgi haro boon 
oreatodthroaghhim,aiidiiAtoUm"; Iob.l:2— "tbnofk vbom alao ho mado the vorUa"; ftoa. 1:2— "andtho 
Spirit of God moTod [marg. 'ma brooding *] apon tho 2mo of tho vaton." From these paasages we may 
also Infer that ( 1 ) all thln^ are absolutely dependent, upon Qod; (2) God exercises 
supreme control over all things; (8) God Is the only Infinite Being; (4) God alone is 
eternal ; ( 5 ) there is no substance out of which God creates ; ( 6 ) things do not proceed 
from God by necessary emanation ; the universe has its source and originator in God*s 
transcendent and personal wOl. See, on this indirect proof of creation, Phillppl, 
Glaubenslehre, 2 : 231. Since other views, however, have been held to be more rational, 
we prooecMl to the examination of 

m. Thbobibs which oppose Creation. 

1. Dualifftn, 

Of dualism thero are two forms : 

A. That which holds to two self -existent principles, Qod and matter. 
These are distinct from and ooetemal with each other. Matter, however^ 
is an unconscious, negative, and imperfect substance, which is subordinate 
to God and is made the instrument of his wilL This was the underlying 
principle of the Alexandrian Gnostics. It was essentiallj an attempt to 
combine with Christianity the Flatonio or Aristotelian conception of the 
if^V' In this way it was thought to account for the existence of evil, and 
to escape the difficulty of imagining a production without use of preexist- 
ing material. Basilides ( flourished 125 ) and Yalentinus ( died 160 ), the 
representatives of this view, were influenced also by Hindu philosophy, 
and their diuilism is almost indistinguishable from pantheism. A similar 
view has been held in modem times by John Stuart Mill and apparently by 
Frederick W. Robertson. 

Dualism seeks to show how the One becomes the many, how the Absolute gives birth 
to the relative, how the Good can consist with evil. The vAi} of Plato seems to have 
meant nothing but empty space, whose not-being, or merely negative existence, pre- 
vented the full realization of the divine ideas. Aristotle regarded the vAi| as a more 
positive cause of imperfection,— It was like the hard material which hampers the 
sculptor in expressing his thought. The real problem for both Plato and Aristotle was 
to explain the passage from pure spiritual existence to that which is phenomenal and 
imperfect, from the absolute and unlimited to that which exists in space and time. 
Finltenoss, instead of being created, was regarded as having eternal existence and as 
limiting all divine manifestations. The vAi}, from being a mere abstraction, became 
either a negative or a positive source of evil. The Alexandrian Jews, under the influ- 
ence of Hellenic culture, sought to make this dualism explain the doctrine of creation. 

Basilides and Yalentinus, however, were also under the influence of a pantheistic 
philosophy brought in from the remote East— the philosophy of Buddhism, which 
taught that the original Source of all was a nameless Being, devoid of all qualities, and 
so. Indistinguishable from Nothing. From this Being, which is Not-being, all existing 
things proceed. Aristotle and Hegel similarly taught that pure Being — Nothing. But 
Inasmuch as the object of the Alexandrian philosophers was to show how something 
could be originated, they were obliged to conceive of the primitive Nothing as capable 
of such originating. They, morover, in the absence of any conception of absolute 
creation, were compelled to conceive of a material which could be fashioned. Hence 
the Void, the Abyss, is made to take the place of matter. If it be said that they did 



THEORIES WHICH OPPOSE CREATION. 379 

not ooQoeive of tho Void or the AbysB as substance, we reply that they gave it Just as 
substantial existence as they gave to the first Cause of things, which, in spite of their 
negative descriptions of it, involved Will and Design. And although they do not 
attribute to this secondary substance a positive influence for evll« they notwithstand- 
ing see in it the unconscious hinderer of all good. 

Principal TuUoch, in Encyc. Brit., 10:701— ** In the Alexandrian Qnosis the 

stream of being in its ever outward flow at length comes in contact with dead matter 
which thus receives animation and becomes a living source of evil.*' Windelband, 
Hist. Philosophy, 129, 144, 239— '' With Yalentinus, side by side with the Deity poured 
forth into the Pleroma or Fulness of spiritual forms, appears the Void, likewlae original 
and from eternity; beside Form appears matter; beside the good appears the evil.*' 
Hansel, Qnostic Heresies, 139— ** The Platonic theory of an inert, semi-existent matter, 

was adopted by the Qnosis of Egypt 187 ~ Yalentinus does not content 

himself , like Plato, with assuming as the germ of the natural world an unformed 

matter existing from all eternity The whole theory may be described as a 

development, in allegorical language, of the pantheistic hypothesis which in its outline 
had been previously adopted by Basilides.'* A. H. Newman, Ch. History, 1 : 181>193, 
calls the philosophy of Basilides ** fundamentally pantheistic.'* ** Yalentinus,*' he says, 
** was not so careful to insist on the original non-existence of Qod and everything.'* We 
reply that even to Basilides the Non-existent One is endued with power ; and this power 
accomplishes nothing until it comes in contact with things non-existent, and out of 
them ftohions the seed of the world. The things non-existent are as substantial as is 
the Fashioner, and they imply both objectivity and limitation. 

Lightfoot, Com. on Colossians, 76-113, esp. 82, has traced a connection between the 
Gnostic doctrine, the earlier Colossian heresy, and the still earlier teaching of the 
Essenes of Palestine. All these were characterized by ( 1 ) the spirit of caste or intel- 
lectual exolusiveness ; (2) peculiar tenets as to creation and as to evil; (3) practical 
asceticism. Blatter is evil and separates man from God ; hence intermediate beings 
between man and God as objects of worship ; hence also mortification of the body as a 
means of purifying man from sin. Paul*s antidote for both errors was simply the 
person of Christ, the true and only Mediator and Sanotifier. See Guericke, Church 
History, 1 : 161. 

Hamack, Hist. Dogma, 1:128— ** The majority of Gnostic undertakings may be 
viewed as attempts to transform Christianity into a theosophy. ... In Gnosticism the 
Hellenic spirit desired to make itself master of Christianity, or more correctly, of the 
Christian communities." ... 232— Hamack represents one of the fundamental philo- 
sophic doctrines of Gnosticism to be that of tho Cosmos as a mixture of matter with 
divine sparks, which has arisen from a descent of the latter into the former [ Alex- 
andrian Gnosticism], or, as some say, from the perverse, or at least merely permitted 
undertaking of a subordinate spirit [ Syrian Gnosticism ]. We may compare the Hebrew 
Sadducee with the Greek Epicurean ; the Pharisee with the Stoic ; the Bssene with the 
Pythagorean. The Pharisees overdid the idea of God*s transcendence. Angels must 
come in between God and the world. Gnostic intermediaries were the logical out- 
come. External works of obedience were alone valid. Christ preached, instead of 
this, a religion of the heart. Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, 1:52— *' The rejection of 
animal sacrifices and consequent abstaining from temple-worship on the part of the 
Essenes, which seems out of harmony with the rest of their legal obedience, is most 
simply explained as the consequence of their idea that to bring to God a bloody animal 
olfering was derogatory to his transcendental character. Therefore they interpreted 
the O. T. command in an allegorizing way.** 

Lyman Abbott : '* The Oriental dreams ; the Greek defines ; the Hebrew acts. Ail 
these influences met and intermingled at Alexandria. Emanations were mediations 
between the absolute, unknowable, all-containing God, and the personal, revealed and 
holy God of Scripture. Asceticism was one result : matter is undivine, therefore get 
rid of it. License was another result : matter is undivine, therefore disregard it — 
there is no disease and there is no sin — the modem doctrine of Christian Science." 
Kedney, Christian Doctrine, 1 : 360-373 ; 2 : 354, conceives of the divine glory as an eternal 
material environment of God, out of which the universe is fashioned. 

The author of **• The Unseen Universe " ( page 17) wrongly calls John Stuart Mill a 
Manichaean. But Mill disclaims belief in the perwrnality of this principle that resists and 
limits God,— see his posthumous Bssuys on Religion, 176-195. F. W. Robertson, Lectures 
on Genesis, 4-16—" Before the creation of the world all was chaos . . . but with the 
creation, order began. • • . God did not cease from creation, for creation is going on 



380 THE WORKS OF GOD. 

every ^7» Nature la Qod at work, Onlj after gurprisinfir changes, as in spring-time, 
do we say flgrnratively, * Gkxl rests.* ** See also Frothlngham, Christian Philosophy. 

With regard to this view we remark : 

(a) The maxim ex nihilo nihil Jit, upon which it rests, is tme only in 
80 far as it asserts that no event takes place without a canse. It is false, if 
it mean that nothing can ever be made except out of material previooslj 
existing. The maxim is therefore applicable only to the realm of second 
causes, and does not bar the creative power of the great first Cause. The 
doctrine of creation does not dispense with a cause ; on the other hand, 
it assigns to the universe a sufficient cause in Gk)d. 

Lucretius : ** Nihil posse creari De nihilo, neque quod genltum est ad nihil revocarL" 
Persius : ** Oi^rni Be nihilo nihil, in nihilum nil posse reverti.'* Martensen, Dogmatios, 
116 — ** The nothing, out of whidi Ood creates the world, is the eternal possibilities of 
his will, which are the sources of all the actualities of the world.** Lewes, Problems of 
Life and Mind, 2: 280— '* When therefore it is argrued that the creation of something 
from nothing is unthinkable and is therefore peremptorily to be rejected, the argu- 
ment seems to me to be defective. The process is thinkable, but not imaginabl«3, 
conceivable but not probable.*' See Cudworth, Intellectual System, 3:81 8Q. Lipsius, 
Dogmatik, 288, remarks that ^e theory of dualism is quite as difficult as that of abso- 
lute creation. It holds to a point of time when Ood began to fashion preexisting mate- 
rial, and can give no reason why Gkxl did not do it before, since there must al¥myB 
have been in him an impulse toward this fashioning. 

( 6 ) Although creation without the use of preexisting material is incon- 
ceivable, in the sense of being unpicturable to the imagination, yet the 
eternity of matter is equally inconceivable. For creation without pre- 
existing material, moreover, we find remote analogies in our own creation 
of ideas and volitions, a fact as inexplicable as €k)d*s bringing of new sub- 
stances into being. 

Mivart, Lessons from Nature, 871, 872— '* We have to a certain extent an aid to the 
thought of absolute creation in our own free volition, which, as absolutely originating 
and determining, may be taken as the type to us of the creative act.** We speak of * the 
creative faculty * of the artist or poet. We cannot give reality to the products of our 
Imaginations, as Qod can to his. But if thought were only suljstance, the analogy 
would be complete. Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 1:487 — ** Our thoughts and volitions are 
created exnihdo^ in the sense that one thought is not made out of another thought, nor 
one volition out of another volition.*' So created substance may be only the mind and 
will of Ood in exerdse, automatically in matter, freely in the case of free beings ( see 
pages 90, 106-110, 883, and in our treatment of Preservation. 

Beddoes : ** I have a bit of Flat in my soul. And can myself create my little world.*' 
Mark Hopkins : " Man is an image of God as a creator. ... He can purposely create, 
or cause to be, a future that, but for him, would not have been." E. C. Stedman, 
Nature of Poetry, 228— '* So far as the Poet, the artist, is creative, he becomes a sharer 
of the divine imagination and power, and even of the divine responsibility.*' Words- 
worth calls the poet a ** serene creator of immortal things." Imagination, he says, is 
but another name for *' clearest insight, amplitude of mind, And reason in her most 
exalted mood." " If we are ' ^ ' ( Fi 82 : • ), that part of the Infinite which is embodied 
in us must partake to a limited extent of his power to create.** Veitch, Knowing and 
Being, 289 — *' Will, the expression of personality, both as originating resolutions and 
moulding existing material into form, is the nearest approach in thought which we 
can make to divine creation." 

Creation is not simply the thought of Ood, — it is also the will of God— thought in 
expression, reason externalized. Will is creation out of nothing, in the sense that there 
Is no use of preexisting material. In man's exercise of the creative imagination there 
is will, as well as intellect. Boyce, Studies of Good and Evil, 2S6, points out that we 
can be original in ( 1 ) the style or form of our work ; ( 2 ) in the selection of the objects 
we imitate ; (8 ) in the invention of relatively novel combinations of material. Style, 
subject, combination, then, comprise the methods of our originality. Our new con- 



THEORIES WmCH OPPOSE CBEATIOK. 381 

oepttons of nature as the expression of the diylne mind and will bring creation more 
within our comprehension than did the old conception of the world as substance capa- 
ble of existing apart from Ood. Hudson, Law of Psychic Phenomena, 204, thinks that 
we have power to create visible phantasms, or embodied thoughts, that can be subject- 
ively perceived by others. See also Hudson's Scientific Demonstration of Future Life, 
153. He defines genius as the result of the synchronous action of the objective and 
subjective faculties. Jesua of Nazareth, in his Judgment, was a wonderful psychic. 
Intuitive perception and objective reason were with him alwajrs in the ascendant. 
His miracles were misinterpreted psychic phenomena. Jesus never claimed that his 
works were outside of natural law. All men have the same intuitional power, though 
in differing degrees. 

We may add that the begetting of a child by man is the giving of substantial exist- 
ence to another. Christ^s creation of man may be like his own begetting by the Father. 
Behrends : *' The relation between God and the universe is more intimate and organic 
than that between an artist and his work. The marble figure is Independent of tho 
sculptor the moment it is completed. It remains, though he die. But the universe 
would vanish in the withdrawal of the divine presence and indwelling. If I were to 
use any figure, it would be that of generation. The immanence of Qod is the secret of 
natural permanence and uniformity. Creation is primarily a spiritual act. The uni- 
verse is not what we see and handle. The real universe is an empire of energies, a hier^ 
archy of correlated forces, whose reality and unity are rooted in the rational will of 
God perpetually active in preservation. But there is no identity of substance, nor is 
there any division of the divine substance." 

Bowne, Theory of Thought and Knowledge, 36— ** A mind is conceivable which should 
create its objects outright by pure self-activity and without dependence on anything 
beyond itself. Such is our conception of the Creator^s relation to his objects. But 
this is not the case with us except to a very slight extent. Our mental life Itself 
begins, and we come only gradually to a knowledge of things and of ourselves. In 
some sense our objects are given ; that is, we cannot have objects at will or vary thetr 
properties at our pleasure. In this sense we are passive in knowledge, and no ideal- 
ism can remove this fact. But in some sense also our objects are our own products ; 
for an existing object becomes an object for us only as we think it, and thus make It 
our object. In this sense, knowledge is an active process, and not a passive reception 
of readjrmade information from without.** Clarke, Self and the Father, 38— ** Are we 
humiliated by having data for our imaginations to work upon? by being unable to 
create matexial? Not unless it be a shame to be second to the Creator.*' Causation is 
as mysterious as Creation. Balzac lived with his characters as actual beings. On the 
Creative Principle, see N. R. Wood, The Witness of Sin, 114-13S. 

( c ) It is nnphilosophical to postulate two eternal substances, when one 
self -existent Cause of all things will account for the facts. ( d ) It contra- 
dicts our fundamental notion of God as absolute sovereign to suppose the 
existence of any other substance to be independent of his wilL (e) This 
second substance with which GK>d must of necessity work, since it is, accord- 
ing to the theory, inherently evil and the source of evil, not only limits 
Ood's power, but destroys his blessedness. (/) This theory does not 
answer its purpose of accounting for moral evil, unless it be also assumed 
that spirit is material, — in which case dualism gives place to materialism. 

Martensen, Dogmatics, 121 — ** God becomes a mere demiurge, if nature existed before 
spirit. That spirit only who in a perfect sense is able to commence his work of crea- 
tion can have power to complete it.'* If God does not create, he must use what mate- 
rial he finds, and this working with intractable material must be his perpetual sorrow. 
Such limitation in the power of the deity seemed to John Stuart Mill the best explana- 
tion of the existing imperfections of the universe. 

The other form of dualism is : 

B. That which holds to the eternal existence of two antagonistic spirits, 
one evil and the other good. In this view, matter is not a negative and 



382 THE WORKS OF GOD. 

imperf eot sabstanoe which nevertheless has self-existenoe» but is eifher fhe 
work or the instmment of a personal and positiYel j malignant intelligence, 
who wages war against all good. This was the view of the Manichieans. 
ManiohsBanism is a compound of Christianity and the Persian doctrine of 
two eternal and opposite intelligencea Zoroaster, however, held matter to 
be pure, and to be the creation of the good Being. Mani apparent!/ 
regarded matter as captive to the evil spirit^ if not absolutely his creatioD. 

The old story of Bfanl^s tnveto In Greece Is wholly a mistake. Giieiioke, Church 
History, 1 : 185-187, maintains that Manichaeanism contains no mixture of Platonic 
philosophy, has no connection wl^ Judaism, and as a sect came into no direct relations 
with the Catholic church. Hamoch, Wegrweiser, 22, calls Manidueanism a compound 
of Gnosticism and Parseeism. Herzog, Encydoplldie, art. : Mani und die ManiohKert 
regards Manichseanism as the fruit, acme, and completion of Gnosticism. Gnosticism 
was a heresy In the church ; Manichaoaniam, like New Platonism, was an anti-church. 
J. P. Lange: ** These oppodng theories represent various pagan conceptions of the 
world, which, after the manner of palimpsests, show through Christianity.** Isaac 
Taylor speaks of **the creator of the camivora*' ; and some modem Christians praoti. 
cally regard Satan as a second and equal God. 

On the Beligion of Zoroaster, see Haug, Essays on Paraees, 18^161, SOS-W ; also our 
quotations on pp. 347-849 ; Monler Williams, in Itfth Century, Jan. 1881 : 155-177— Ahura 
Mazda was the creator of the universe. Blatter was created by him, and was neither 
identified with him nor an emanation from him. In the divine nature there were two 
opposite, but not opposing, principles or forces, called ** twins'*— the one constructive, 
the other destructive ; the one beneficent, the other maleficent. Zoroaster called these 
** twins ' ' also by the name of ** spirits,** and declared that ** these two spirits created, the 
one the reality, the other the non-reality." Williams says that these two principles 
were confiicting only in name. The only antagonism was between the resulting good 
and evil brought about by the free agent, man. See Jackson, Zoroaster. 

We may add that in later times this personification of principles in the deity seems to 
have become a definite belief in two opposing personal spirits, and that Mani, Manes, 
or Manichaeus adopted this feature of Paneeism, with the addition of certain Christian 
elements. Hagenbach, History of Doctrine, 1 : 470 — ^ The doctrine of the Manichaeans 
was that creation was the work of Satan." See also Gieseler, Church History, 1 :203; 
Neander, Church History, 1 : 478-^06 ; Blunt, Diet. Doct. and Hist. Theology, art. : Dual- 
ism ; and especially Baur, Das manichlUsohe BeligionsBystem. A. H. Newman, Ch. His- 
tory, 1 : 194 — " Manicheeism is Gnosticism, with its Christian elements reduced to a 
minimum, and the Zoroastrian, old Babylonian, and other Oriental elements raised 
to the maximum. Manichasism is Oriental dualism under Christian names, the Chria- 
tlan names employed retaining scarcely a trace of their proper meaning. The most 
fundamental thing in Manicheeism is its absolute dualism. The kingdom of light and 
the kingdom of darkaesB with their rulers stand eternally opposed to each other.*' 

Of this view we need only say that it is refuted ( a ) by all the argoments 
for the unity, omnipotence, sovereignty, and blessedness of God ; (b) by 
the Scripture representations of the prince of evil as the creature of Gk>d 
and as subject to Qod's controL 

Scriptiure passages showing that Satan is God*s creature or subject are the following : 
OoL 1 : 16 — "for in hia vara all things erwtid, in tha hiaTi&t and upon tha aartk, tkiagi tiiiblaand thingi inrisible, 
vhethar thronn or liamtniflnt or prmcipilitini or powtn '* ; cf. Kph. 6 : 12 — "oar vrestling is not against fUsh and 
blood, Imt against the prinoipalities, against tlM povtr% against tlM world-^vlors of this darknsss, against the ^iritoal 
hosts of iriokodaoss in the hsarenlj places'* ; 2 Pet 2: 4 — " God spared not the angels when thej sinned, but oast them 
dovn to hell, and eommitted thorn to pits of darkness* to be reserved unto judgment " ; Rer. 20 : 2 — "laid hold on the 
dragon, the old secpent, whioh is the Deril and Satan"; 10 — "and the doTil that deoeiTod them was east into the lakt 
of fire and brimstone." 

The closest analogy to Manichsean dualism is found in the popular conception of the 
devil held by the mediaeval Roman church. It is a question whether he was regarded 
as a rival or as a serrant of God. Matheson, Messages of Old Ueligions, says that 
Parseeism recognizes an obstructive element in the nature of God himself. Moral evil 
is reality, and there is that element of truth in Parseeism. But there is no reconcilia' 




THEORIES WHICH OPPOSE CREATION. 383 

tion, nor is it shown that all things work toirether for good. E. H. Johnson : '* This 
theory sets up matter as a sort of deity, a senseless idol endowed with the truly divine 
attribute of self-«jd8tcnoe. But we can acknowledge but one God. To erect matter 
into an eternal Thing, independent of the Almighty but forever beside him, is the most 
revolting of all theories.** Tennyson, Unpublished Poem ( Life, 1 : 314 ) — *' Oh me I for 
why is all around us here As if some lesser God had made the world, But had not foroe 
to shape it as he would Till the high Gk>d behold it from beyond. And enter it and make 
it beautiful?*' 

B. Q. Robinson : ** Evil is not eternal ; if it were, we should be paying our respects to 
it. . • • There Is much Manichceism in modem piety. We would influence soul through 
the body. Hence sacramentarianism and penance. Puritanism is theological Mani- 
ohaeanian. Christ recommended fasting because it belonged to his age. Christianity 
came from Judaism. Churchism comes largely from reproducing what Christ did. 
Christianity is not perfunctory in its practices. We are to fast only when there is good 
reason for it." L. H. Mills, New World, March, 1896 : 61, suggests that Pharisoeism may 
be the same with Farseeism, which is but another name for Parseeism. He thinks that 
Resurrection, Immortality, Paradise, Satan, Judgment, Hell, came from Persian 
sources, and gradually drove out the old Sadduceean simplicity. ■ Pfleiderer, Philos. 
Religion, 1 : 206— "According to the Persian legend, the first human pair was a good 
creation of the all-wise Spirit, Ahura, who had breathed into them his own breath. 
But soon the primeval men allowed themselves to be seduced by the hostile Spirit 
Angromainyu into lying and idolatry, whereby the evil spirits obtained power over 
them and the earth and spoiled the good creation.'* 

DisselhofT, Die klassische Poesie und die gOttliche OfTenbarung, 13-25—*' The Gathas 
of Zoroaster are the first poems of humanity. In them man rouses himself to assert 
his superiority to nature and the spirituality of God. Qod is not Identified with 
nature. The impersonal nature-gods are vain idols and are causes of corruption. 
Their worshipers are servants of falsehood. Ahura-Mazda ( living-wise ) is a moral and 
spiritual personality. Ahriman is equally eternal but not equally powerful. Good 
has not complete victory over evU. Dualism is admitted and unity is lost. The con- 
flict of fUths leads to separation. While one portion of the race remains in the Iranian 
highlands to maintain man's freedom and independence of nature, another portion goes 
Soutb-East to the luxuriant banks of the Ganges to serve the deified forces of nature. 
The East stands for unity, as the West for duality. Tet Zoroaster in the Gathas is 
almost deified ; and his religion, which begins by giving predominance to the good 
Spirit, ends by being honey-combed with nature-worship." 

2. Umanation, 

This theory holds that the tmiverse is of the same substance with Gk>d, 
and is the product of successive evolutions from his being. This was the 
view of the Syrian Gnostics. Their system was an attempt to interpret 
Ohristianity in the forms of Oriental theosophy. A similar doctrine 'W'js 
taught, in the last century, by Swedenborg. 

We object to it on the following grounds : ( a ) It virtually denies the 
infinity and transcendence of God, — by applying to him a principle of 
evolution, growth, and progress which belongs only to the finite and imper- 
fect. ( 6 ) It contradicts the divine holiness, — since man, wh o by the 
theory is of the substance of God, is nevertheless morally eviL (c) It 
leads logically to pantheism, — since the claim that human personality is 
illusory cannot be maintained without also surrendering belief in the per- 
sonality of God. 

Satuminus of Antioch, Bardesanes of Edcssa, Tatian of Assyria, Marcion of Sinope, 
all of the second century, were representatives of this view. Blunt, Diet, of Doct. and 
Hist. Theology, art. : Emanation : **" The divine operation was symbolized by the image 
of the rays of light proceeding from the sun, which were most intense when nearest to 
the luminous substance of the body of which they formed a part, but which decreased 
in intensity as they receded from their source, until at last they disappeared altogether 
in darkness. So the spiritual effulgence of the Supreme Mind formed a world of spirit. 



384 THE WOBKS OF GOD. 

the intensify of which varied inversely with its distance from its source, until at 
lenirth it vanished in matter. Hence there is a chain of ever expanding .£ons which 
are increasing' attmuations of his substance and the sum of which constitutes his ful- 
ness, i. e„ the complete revelation of his hidden being." Emanation, from e, and manare^ 
to flow forth. Gucricke, Church History, 1 : 160— ** many flames from one light .... 
the direct contrary to the doctrine of creation from nothing.'* Neander, Church His- 
tory, 1 : 37:^^4. The doctrine of emanation is distinctly mateiialistio. We hold, on the 
contrary, that the universe is an expression of God, but not an emanation from God. 

On the difference between Oriental emanation and eternal generation, see 8hedd« 
Dogm. TheoL, 1 : 470, and History Doctrine, 1 : 11-13, 318, note— ^ L That which is eter- 
nally generated is infinite, not finite ; it is a divine and eternal person who is not the 
world or any portion of it. In the Oriental schemes, emanation is a mode of account- 
ing for the origin of the finite. But eternal generation still leaves the finite to be 
originated. The begetting of the Bon is the generation of an infinite person who after- 
wards creates the finite universe de nUiUo. 2. Eternal generation has for its result a 
subsistence or personal hypostasis totally distinct from the world ; but emanation in 
relation to the deity yields only an impersonal or at most a personified energy or efflu- 
ence which is one of the powers or principles of nature — a mere anUna mundU* The 
truths of which emanation was the perversion and caricature were therefore the gen- 
eration of the Son and the procession of the Spirit. 

Principal Tulloch, in Encyc. Brit., 10 : 701 — *' All the Gnostics agree in regarding this 
world as not proceeding immediately from the Supreme Being. . . . The Supreme 
Being is regarded as wholly inconceivable and indescribable— as the unfathomable 
Abyss (Valentinus) — the Unnameable (Basilidcs). From this transcendent source 
existence springs by emanation in a series of spiritual powers. . . . The passage from 
the higher spiritual world to the lower material one is, on the one hand, apprehended 
as a mere continued degeneracy from the Source of Life, at length terminating in the 
kingdom of darkness and death — the bordering chaos surrounding the kingdom of 
light. On the other hand the passage is apprehended in a more precisely dualistic form, 
as a positive invasion of the kingdom of Ught by a self-existent kingdom of darkness. 
According as Gnosticism adopted one or other of these modes of explaining the exist- 
ence of the present world, it fell into the two great divisions which, from their places 
of origin, have received the respective names of the Alexandrian and Syrian Gnosis. 
The one, as we have seen, presents more a Western, the other more an Eastern type of 
speculation. The dualistic element in the one case scarcely appears beneath the panthe- 
istic, and bears resemblance to the Platonic notion of the vAq, a mere blank necessity, a 
limitless void. In the other case, the dualistic element is clear and prominent, corres- 
ponding to the Zarathustrian doctrine of an active principle of evil as well as of good 
—of a kingdom of Ahriman, as well as a kingdom of Ormuzd. In the Syrian Gnosis 
• . . there appears from the flrst a hostile principle of evil in collision with the good.*' 

We must remember that dualism is an attempt to substitute for the doctrine of abso- 
lute creation, a theory that matter and evil are due to something negative or positive 
outside of God. Dualism is a theory of origins, not of results. Keeping this in mind, 
we may call the Alexandrian Gnostics dualists, while we regard emanation as the char- 
acteristic teaching of the Syrian Gnostics. These latter made matter to be only an 
efflux from God and evil only a degenerate form of good. If the Syrians held the world 
to be independent of God, this independence was conceived of only as a later result or 
product, not as an original fact. Some like Satuminus and Bardesanes verged toward 
lianichasan doctrine ; others like Tatlan and Mardon toward Egyptian dualism ; but 
all held to emanation as the philosophical explanation of what the Scriptures call crea- 
tion. These remarks will serve as qualification and criticism of the opinions which we 
proceed to quote. 

Sheldon, Ch. Hist., 1:806— ^ The Syrians were in general more dualistic than the 
Alexandrians. Some, after the fashion of the Hindu pantheists, regarded the material 
realm as the region of emptiness and illusion, the void opposite of the Pleroma, that 
world of spiritual reality and fulness ; others assigned a more positive nature to the 
material, and regarded it as capable of an evil aggressiveness even apart from any 
quickening by the incoming of life from above.*' Mansel, Gnostic Heresies, 139—** Like 
Satuminus, Bardesanes is said to have combined the doctrine of the malignity of mat- 
ter with that of an active principle of evil ; and he connected together these two usu- 
ally antagonistic theories by maintaining that the inert matter was co-eternal with 
God, while Satan as the active principle of evil was produced from matter ( or, accord- 
ing to another statement, co-eternal with it ), and acted In conjunction with it. 142— 



THE0RIB8 WHICH OPPOSE CREATIOK. 385 

The feature which is usually selected afi characteristic of the Syrian Gnosis is the doc* 
trine of dualism ; that is to say, the assumption of the existence of two active and 
independent principles, the one of irood, the other of evil. This assumption was dis- 
tinctly held by Saturninus and Bardesanes ... in contradistinction to the Platonic 
theory of an inert semi-existent matter, which was adopted by the Gnosis of BflTPt. 
The former principle found its logical development in the next century in Mani- 
cheism ; the latter leads with almost equal certainty to Pantheism.*' 

A. H. Newman, Ch. History, 1 : 192— " Marcion did not speculate as to the origin of 
evil. The Demiurge and his kingdom are apparently regarded as existing from eter- 
nity. Matter he regarded as intrinsically evil, and he practised a rigid asceticism." 
Mansel, Gnostic Heresies, 210 ~^* Marcion did not, with the majority of the Gnostics, 
regard the Demiurge as a derived and dependent being, whose imperfection is due to 
his remoteness from the highest Cause ; nor yet, acoordlnflr to the Persian doctrine, did 
he assume an eternal principle of pure malignity. His second principle is independent 
of and co-eternal with, the first ; opposed to it however, not as evil to good, but as 
imperfection to perfection, or, as Marcion expressed it, as a Just to a good being. 218 
— Non-recognition of any principle of pure evil. Three principles only : the Supreme 
God, the Demiurge, and the eternal Matter, the two latter being imperfect but not 
necessarily evil. Some of the Marcionites seem to have added an evil spirit as a fourth 
principle. . . . Marcion is the least Gnostic of all the Gnostics. . . . 31— The Indian 
influence may be seen in Egypt, the Persian in Syria. . . . 82— To Platonism, modified 
by Judaism, Gnosticism owed much of its philosophical form and tendencies. To the 
dualism of the Persian religion it owed one form at least of Its speculations on the 
origin and remedy of evil, and many of the details of its doctrine of emanations. To 
the Buddhism of India, modified again probably by Platonism, It was indebted for 
tlie doctrines of the antagonism between spirit and matter and the unreality of derived 
existence ( the germ of the Gnostic Docetism ), and in part at least for the theory which 
regards the universe as a scries of successive emanations from the absolute Unity.** 

Emanation holds that some stuff has proceeded from the natnre of God, and that 
God has formed this stuff into the universe. But matter is not composed of stuff at 
all. It is merely an activity of God. Origen held that ^x^ etymologically denotes a 
being which, struck off from God the central source of light and warmth, has cooled 
in its love for the good, but still has the possibility of returning to its spiritual origin* 
Pfleiderer, Philosophy of Religion, 2 : 271, thus describes Origen's view : ** As our body, 
while consisting of many members, is yet an organism which is held together by one 
soul, so the universe is to be thought of as an immense living being, which is held 
together by one soul, the power and the Logos of God.** Palmer, TheoL Definition, 63, 
note — '* The evil of Emanationism is seen in the history of Gnosticism. An emanation 
is a portion of the divine essence regarded as separated from it and sent forth as inde- 
pendent. Having no perpetual bond of connection with the divine. It either sinks Into 
degradation, as Basilides taught, or becomes actively hostile to the divine, as the 

Ophites believed In like manner the Deists of a later time came to regard the 

laws of nature as having an independent existence, i. e., as emanations." 

John Milton, Christian Doctrine, holds this view. Matter is an efflux from Qod him- 
self, not intrinsically bad, and incapable of annihilation. Finite existence is an emana- 
tion from God's substance, and God has loosened his hold on those living x>ortions or 
centres of finite existence which he has endowed with free will, so that these independ- 
ent beings may originate actions not morally referable to himself. This doctrine of 
free will relieves Milton from the charge of pantheism ; see Masson, Life of Milton^ 
6:824-826. Lotze, Philos. Religiou, xlviii, 11, distinguishes creation from emanation by 
saying that creation necessitates a divine Will, while emanation flows by natural conse- 
quence from the being of God. God*s motive in creation is love, which urges him to 
commimicate his holiness to other beings. God creates individual finite spirits, and 
then permits the thought, which at first was only his, to become the thought of these 
other spirits. This transference of his thought by will is the creation of the world* 
P. W. Farrar, on Heb. 1:2 — " The word ^on was used by the Gnostics to describe the 
various emanations by which they tried at once to widen and to bridge over the gulf 
between the human and the divine. Over that imaginary chasm John threw the aroh 
of the Incarnation, when he wrote : * The Word became flesh ' ( John 1 : 14 )." 

Upton, Hibbert Lectures, chap. 2—" In the very making of souls of his own essence 

and substance, and in the vacating of his own causality in order that men may be free, 

God already dies in order that they may live. God withdraws himself from our wills, 

so as to make possible free choice and even possible opposition to himaelf. Individual* 

25 — 



3M TEX WOEKS <fW GOD. 




tk/sn is BoUteror 
4inm: im iaeiL . 

tibc;L0t<rf pfmy«r;itihoakl md: **Asob 

aO vbo tMioQied to 

but EBtJber dnriDe cnereSiinr te 
4iCvndi!«A«bif'^iKiiaticm,froaiii»nn-iipto niatd. It kK iMd a begftmins; and God 
ktH foMitnted k. Itiiafiiiitieandi«rtteliBaii2f«9atiOBof tke Inlnlte Spirit. Ifatter 
ii Ml exprcHioo of qiMt* bat doc m cnsnfttioii frcm sfdnt, an j CDore tfaan our 
tkoogbuaodrolitioivare. Finite «|iirittL on ike otker band. tt^ dJ ge i ea Tit i nn i i wtOiin 
tkk teter c^ God bi—flf, and so are doc emanations from his. 
Kmttuksoa asltHfl Goeche vfaat ^axner vas^ "* Etf^ii iftif—tnmen spirit* to the 
r«r Stbuiilkag wftbed Goeche ted girea him. But neither ii matter fl|iirit« nor are 
and ^4rftU«cther mere natural cauxtffifrrac God's snbstazsce. A dirine insd- 
tntloo of them is rbquhite < quoted snbstantiallj from Domer. Svstem of Doctrine, 
tiHtK ffehkyfeifaasimiiarmanner called a i ch i t e ct u re ■* fronm moac " and aooCher 
writer eails moiic **dimolrcd architectue." TWre is a *" psyvhkal antomatism,* as 
Ladd mfB, tn bis Pfafkjacipbr of Hind. ItO; SDd He«ei ealls nature **the corpse of the 
ond^ffvcandtac— fpirit in alienation from ftself.** But «irit is the Adam, of which 
nature is tibeEve: and smn aajm to nature: 'DvhkmiirnjbMi^mAiiAirnyii^'* ss 
A#hUBdSdln««L2:ZL 

3. OreaiUmfram eUmUy, 

Tfak tber/iy negards cfeation m an ad of God in etemitr past It was 
prc^ionded hj Origen, and has been held in recent times bj Martensen, 
Martin^aa, Jobn Caird, Knight, and Pfleideier. The neoessHr of soppoa- 
Ing soch ereatir/n from etemitj baa been argned from God*s omnipotence, 
Oorra tim^U^aMM^aa, Ood*a imnratabilitj, and God*s loTa. We consider 
each <A ikitum argnm«nta in their order. 

Origimbcrldtlmtrw^ vas from eternitj the creator of the world of spirits. Harten- 
mm^ in bis D^irniaticsi, IS4, th0fw% tmrftr to tlie majdms: ** Without the world God is not 
<i*>iL • • « « (yA tsrmUA thft world tosatisf J a want in himself. .... He cannot but 
eonstUtite hfmmit tiMr FatlMT //f spfrfbi.'' HchOler, Die Freundschaft. last stanza, ^res 
th« foflr/wfnir p^^ilar 0rMur*m^m Uf tbie rUrwi Trenndlos war der g ro o s c Welten- 
melMUsr $ FOblte Man*^ damm s^rfauf ttr Geister, Sel'ge Spiegel seiner Selifrkeit. Fsnd 
das b/jcfasCe W«iien sdbr/o k^sln GVi^.-b^^; Aos derm Kelch des ganzen Geisterreichcs 
fitAMttmt fbm dUf rnendU/^keH,** Th^ p^jet's thought was perhaps suggested by 
(i*t*^h0^n Mr/rrr/ws r/f W^Ttb#?r j *• The lliirbt of a Mrd aUive my bead inspired me with 
tlwr AMiimtff ftt^tm tfunttf^fruA Ur tt/t: th/fTPM tit the immeasurable wato*^ there to 
/|fiair th#Y ^f^mmtnm t4 Win tfffm ikm ffmmtmc lf*A>Uit *d the infinite.*' Robert Browning, 
Ual/M fi«n ftera« Zl '*** liirt f m^ utm m tht-n^ TVre, r;od, who mouldest men. And 
MfUPtf wA tftmt Wt0tn th^ Wh\r\ wm wtrno^ l/ld l—Ut t\n'. wheel of life With shapes and 
ettUfrn rif^, lUftnA dfewstfy --^ MMtfJO^ mr *m4^ To nlMk«; thy tbir»t.'* But this regards the 
Crnt^fT tut AirpmyUtul ntifm, tut/t \u t0ffft/ltm0t t//« hUt trwn world. 

Fythair'^niM fe^d lh«i(l tmUtf^n mtt^^Mft^'^m ar*d Imwn uns t^jmaL Hartineau, Study of 
IMAgUntf titUi 2i2Utt mnim Uf mmk^ tim wmikm of tb« world an eternal process, 




THEORIES WHICH OPPOSE CREATION. 387 

oonoeivinff of it as a self-sunderingr of the Deity, in wh<im in some way the world was 
always contained ( Sohurman, Belief in God, 140 ). Knit^ht, Studies in Philos. and Lit., 
94, quotes from Byron's Cain, 1:1— ^* Let him Sit on his vast and solitary throne, 
CreatlniT worlds, to make eternity Less burdensome to his immense existence And 
unparticipated solitude He, so wretched in his height. So restless in his wretched- 
ness, must still Create and recreate.'* Byron puts these words into the mouth of 
Lucifer. Tet Knisrht, in his Essays in Philosophy, 143, 247, reg-ards the universe as the 
eTcrlastin? effect of an eternal Cause. Oualism, he thinks, is Involved in the very 
notion of a search for God. 

W. N. Clarke, Christian Theolojry* 117 — ** God is the source of the universe. Whether 
by immediate production at some point of time, so that after he had existed alone 
there came by his act to be a universe, or by perpetual production from his own spirit- 
ual being, so that his eternal existence was always accompanied by a universe in some 

stage of being, God has brought the universe into existence Any method in 

which the independent God could produce a universe which without him could have 
had no existence, is accordant with the teachings of Scripture. Many find it easier 
philosophically to hold that God has eternally brought forth creation from himself, so 
that there has never been a time when there was not a universe in some stage of exist- 
ence, than to think of an instantaneous creation of all existing things when there had 
been nothing but God before. Between these two views theology is not compelled to 
decide, provided we believe that God is a free Spirit greater than the universe.'* We 
dissent from this conclusion of Dr. Clarke, and hold that Scripture requires us to trace 
the universe back to a beginning, while reason itself is better satisfied with this view 
than It can be with the theory of creation from eternity. 

( a ) Creation from eternity is not necessitated by Gbd's omnipotence. 
Omnipotence does not necessarily imply actual creation ; it implies only 
power to create. Creation, moreover, is in the nature of the case a thing 
begun. Creation from eternity is a contradiction in terms, and that which 
is self -contradictory is not an object of power. 

The argument rests upon a misconception of eternity, regarding it as a prolongation 
of time into the endless past. We have seen in our discussion of eternity as an attribute 
of God, that eternity is not endless time, or time without beginning, but rather superi- 
ority to the law of time. Since eternity is no more past than it is present-, the idea of 
creation from eternity is an irrational one. We inu^t distinguish creation in eternity 
past- f — God and the world co^temal, yet God the cause of the world, as he is the 
b^;etter of the Son ) f rom co7iti7moi/« crf^if {on (which is an explanation of preserva- 
tion, but not of creation at all ). It is this latter, not the former, to which Rothe holds 
(seeunder the doctrine of Preservation, pages 415, 416). Birks, Difficulties of Belief, 
81, 82—** Creation is not from eternity, since past eternity cannot be actually traversed 
any more than we can reach the bound of an eternity to come. There was no time 
before creation, because there was no mwcession.^* 

Birks, Scripture Doctrine of Creation, 78-105— ** The first verse of Genesis excludes 
five speculative falsehoods : 1. that there is nothing but uncreated matter ; 2. that 
there is no God distinct from his creatures ; 3. that creation is a series of acts without 
a beginning : 4. that there is no real universe ; 5. that nothing can be known of 
God or the origin of things." Veitch, KInowing and Being, 22 — ** The ideas of creation 
and creative energy are emptied of meaning, and for them is substituted the conception 
or fiction of an eternally related or double-sided world, not of what has been, but of 
what always is. It is another form of the see-saw philosophy. The eternal Self only is, 
if the eternal manifold is ; the eternal manifold is, if the eternal Self is. The one, in 
being the other, is or makes itself the one ; the other, in being the one. Is or makes 
itself the other. This may be called a unity ; it is rather, if we might invent a term 
suited to the new and marvellous conception, an unparalleled and unbegotten twinity." 

( 6 ) Creation from eternity is not necessitated by God*s timelessness. 
Because God is free from the law of time it does not follow that creation la 
free from that law. Rather is it true that no eternal creation is conceiv- 
able, since this involves an infinite number. Time must have had a begin- 
ning, and since the universe and time are coexistent, creation could not 
have been from eternity. 



388 THE WORKS OF GOD. 

Xii« 2S~*liCm an tiM** —Implies tittt time had ft bestamiiw, and ^ l:4~**kfcn te f^ 
iati«tftte««rU"— implies that creation Itself hftd a twyinning. Is creatioD inflnite? 
No, says Domer, Glaubenslehre, 1:450, because to a petfectcreatioo unity is as neoes- 
sary as multiplicity. The universe is an onnuusm, and there can be no organiBm witli- 
out a definite number of parts. For a similar reason Domer, System Doctrine, 2: 28, 
denies that the uni\'erBC can be etemaL Granting cm the one hand that the world 
though eternal mig^ht be dependent upon God and as soon as the plan was evolved 
there might be no reason why the execution should be delayed, yet on the other hand 
the absolutely limitless is the imperfect and no univene with an infinite number of 
parts is conceivable or possible. So JuUus MtlUer, Doctrine of Sin, 1 : 280-235—** What 
has a goal or end must have a beginning ; history, as teleologioajU impUes creation.** 

Lotze, Philos. Religion, 74— *" The world, with respect to its existence as well as its 
oonteDt, is completely dependent on the will of God, and not as a mere involuntary 
development of his nature. . . . The word 'creation 'ought not to be used to designate 
a deed of God so much as the absolute dependence of the world on his wilL" So Sdiur- 
man. Belief in God, 146, 156, 225— ''Creation is the eternal dependence of the world on 
God. .... Nature is the extemalization of spirit. .... Material things exist simply as 
modes of the divine activity ; they have no existence for themselves.** On this view 
that God is the Ground but not the Creator of the world, see Hovey, Studies in Ethics 
and Religion, 23-M— " Creetion is no more of a mystery than is the causal action " in 
which botn Lotze and Schurman believe. *' To deny that divine power can originate 
real being — can add to the sum total of existence — is much like saying- that such 
power is finite.** No one can prove that ** it is of the essence of spirit to reveal itself,*' 
or if so, that it must do this by means of an organism or extemalisation. Eternal 
sucoeseioD of changes in nature is no more comprehensible than are a creating God 
and a univene originating in time.*' 

(c) Creation from eternity is not necessitated by God's immntability. 
His immatability requires, not an eternal creation, bat only an eternal plan 
of creation. The opposite principle would compel us to deny the possibility 
of miracles, incarnation, and regeneration. Lake creation, these too would 
need to be etemaL 

Wo distinguish between idea and plan, between plan and execution. Much of God's 
plan is not yet executed. The beginning of its execution is as easy to conceive as is 
the continuation of its execution. But the befrinning of the execution of God*8 plan 
is creation. Active will is an element in cn^ation. God's will is not always active 
He waits for " the ftilBMi of tte tim6 " (6aL4:4) before he sends forth his Son. As we can 
trace baolc Christ's earthly life to a beginning, so we can trace back the life of the 
universe to a beginning. Those who hold to creation from eternity usually interpret 
6«iLl:l— "Ia the beginning God eroatad the hMTons tad tte eartk," and Joknl:! — "hi tke btgianiBg vm tke 
▼ord," as both and alike meaning "in eternity.'* But neither of these texts has this 
meaning. In each wc are simply carried back to the beginning of the creation, and it 
is asserted that God was its author and that the Word already was. 

(d) Creation from eternity is not necessitated by Gtod's love. Creation 
is finite and cannot furnish perfect satisfaction to the infinite love of GhxL 
God has moreover from eternity an object of love infinitely superior to any 
possible creation, in the person of his Son. 

Since all things are created in Christ, the eternal Word, Reason, and Power of God, 
God can "reoondlo all thiogi to lumMlf " In Christ ( Col. 1 : 20 ). Athanasius called God <rri<rn^, ov 
r«xyirrtf — Creator, not Artisan. By this he meant that God is immanent, and not the 
God of deism. But the moment we conceive of God as revealinij himself in Christ, the 
idea of creatirm as an eternal satisfaction of his love vanish(>8. God can have a plan 
without executing his plan. Decree can precede creation. Ideas of the universe may 
exist in the divine mind before they are realized by the divine will. There are purposes 
of salvation in Christ which antedate the world ( EplL 1 : 4 ). The doctrine of the Trinity, 
once firmly grasped, enables us to see the fallacy of such views as that of Pflelderer, 
Philos. Religion, 1 : 286 — ** A beginning and ending in time of the creating of God are 
not thinkable. That would bo to suppose a change of creating and resting in God, 
which would equalize God's being with the changeable course of human life. Nor 



■\ 



THEORIES WHICH OPPOSE CREATION. 389 

oould It be oonoelved what should have hindered God from oreatinir the world up to the 
beffinnin^r of his creating-. . . . We say rather, with Scotus Erlgena, that the divine 
vreatin^ is equally eternal with Gkxl^s being.'* 

(e) Creation from eternity, moreover, is inconsistent with the divine 
independence and personality. Since God's power and love are infinite, a 
creation that satisfied them must be infinite in extent as well as eternal in 
past duration — in other words, a creation equal to God. But a Gk>d thus 
dependent upon external creation is neither free nor sovereign. A God 
existing in necessary relations to the universe, if different in substance from 
the universe, must be the God of dualism ; if of the same substance with the 
universe, must be the God of pantheism. 

Oore, Incarnation, 196, 137— *^ Christian theolofiry is the harmony of pantheism and 
deism. ... It enjoys all the riches of pantheism without ita inherent weakness on the 
moral side, without making God dependent on the world, as the world is dependent on 
God. On the other hand, Christianity converts an unintelligible deism into a rational 
theism. It can explain how God became a creator in time, because it knows how crea- 
tion has its eternal analogue in the uncreated nature ; it was God's nature eternally to 
produce, to communicate itself, to live." In other words, it can explain how God can 
beetemallyalive, independent, self-sufficient, since he is Trinity. Creation from eter- 
nity is a natural and logical outgrowth of Unitarian tendencies in theology. It is of a 
piece with the Stoic monism of which we read in Hatch, Hibbert Lectures, 177 — *^ Stoic 
monism conceived of the world as a self -evolution of God. Into such a conception the 
idea of a beginning does not necessarily enter. It is consistent with the idea of an 
eternal process of differentiation. That which is always has been under changed and 
changing forms. The theory is oosmological rather than cosmogonical. It rather 
explains the world as it is, than gives an account of its origin.'* 

4. Spontaneous generation. 

This theory holds that creation is but the name for a natural process still 
going on, — matter itself having in it the power, under proper conditions, 
of taking on new functions, and of developing into organic forms. This 
view is held by Owen and Bastian. We object that 

(a) It is a pure hypothesis, not only im verified, but contrary to all known 
facts. No credible instance of the production of living forms from inor- 
ganic material has yet been adduced. So far as science can at present teach 
us, the law of nature is ** omne vivum e vivo,'* or ** ex ovo. " 

Owen, Comparative Anatomy of the Vertebrates, 3 : 814-818 — on Mouogcny or Thau- 
matogeny ; quoted in Argylc, lleign of Law, 281 — ** Wo discern no evidence of a pause 
or intromission in the creation or coming-to-be of new plants and animals." So Bastian, 
Modes of Origin of Lowest Organisms, Beginnings of Life, and articles on Heteroge- 
neous Bvoiution of Living Things, in Nature, 3 : 170, 193, 219, 410, 431. See Huxley's 
Address before the British Association, and Keply to 13astian, in Nature, 2 : 400, 473 ; 
also Origin of Species, 69-79, and Physical Basis of Life, in Lay Sermons, 142. Answers 
to this last by Stirling, in Half-hours with Modem Scientists, and by Beale, Protoplasm, 
or Life, Matter, and Mind, 73-75. 

In favor of Iledl's maxim, **omne vivum e vivo," see Huxley, in Encyc. Britannica, 
art.: Biology, 689— "At the present moment there is not a shadow of trustworthy direct 
evidence that abiogenesis doi*s take phioe or has taken place within the period during 
which the existence of the earth is recorded " ; Flint, Physiology of Man, 1 : 263-265 — 
**As the only true philosophic view to take of the question, wo shall assume in common 
witii nearly all the modem writers on physiology that there is no such thing as spon- 
taneous generation, — admitting that the exact mo<ie of production of the infusoria 
lowest in the scale of life is not understood." On the Philosophy of Evolution, see 
A. H. Strong, Philosophy and Religion^ 39-S7. 



390 THE WORKS OF GOD. 

( & ) If snch instanoes conld be aathenticated, they would prove nothing 
as against a proper doctrine of creation, — for there would still exist an 
impossibility of accounting for these vivifio properties of matter, except 
upon the Scriptural view of an intelligent Contriver and Originator of 
matter and its laws. In short, evolution implies previous involution, — if 
anything comes out of matter, it must first have been put in. 

Sully : ** Every doctrine of evolution must assume some definite initial arrangement 
which is supposed to contain the possibilities of the order which we find to be evolved 
and no other possibility.*' Bixby, Crisis of Morals, 258— "If no creative flat can be 
believed to create something: out of nothing, still leas is evolution able to perform such 
a contradiction.'* As we can get morality only out of a moral germ, so we can get 
vitality only out of a vital germ. Martineau, Seat of Authority, 14 — •' By brooding 
long enough on an egg that is next to nothing, you can in this way hatch any universe 
actual or possible. Is it not evident that this is a mere trick of imagination, concealing 
its thefts of causation by committing them little by little, and taking the heap from the 
divine storehouse grrain by grain ? *' 

Hens come before eggs. Perfect organic forms are antecedent to all life-oeUs, 
whether animal or vegetable. ** Omnis oellula e oellula, sed primaria oellula ex organ- 
ismo." God created first the tree, and its seed was in it when created ( Gtn. 1 : 12 ). Proto- 
plasm is not protoHf but deuUron ; the elements are antecedent to it. It is not true that 
man was never made at all but only ** growed " like Topsy ; see Watts, New ApologetlCt 
X vi, 812. Koyce, Spirit of Modem Philosophy, 273 — " Evolution is the attempt to com- 
prehend the world of experience in terms of the fundamental idealistic postulates : ( 1 ) 
without ideas, there is no reality ; ( 2 ) rational order requires a rational Being to Intro- 
duce it ; (1) beneath our conscious self there must be an infinite Self. The question is : 
Has the world a meaning? It is not enough to refer ideas to mechanism. Evolution, 
from the nebula to man, is only the unfolding of the life of a divine Self." 

(c) This theory, therefore, if true, only supplements the doctrine of 
original, absolute, immediate creation, with another doctrine of mediate 
and derivative creation, or the development of the materials and forces 
originated at the beginning. This development, however, cannot proceed to 
any valuable end without guidance of the same intelligence which initiated 
it. The Scriptures, although they do not sanction the doctrine of sponta- 
neous generation, do recognize processes of development as supplementing 
the divine fiat which first called the elements into being. 

There is such a thing as free will, and free will does not, like the deterministio will, 
run in a groove. If there be free will in man, then much more is there free will in 
God, and God's will does not run in a groove. God is not bound by law or to law. Wis- 
dom docs not Imply monotony or uniformity. God can do a thing once that is never 
done again. Circumstances are never twice alike. Here is the basis not only of crea- 
tion but of new creation, including miracle, incarnation, resurrection, regeneration, 
redemption. Though will both in God and in man is for the most part automatic and 
acts according to law, yet the power of new beginnings, of creative action, resides In 
will, wherever it is free, and this free will chiefly makes God to be God and man to be 
man. Without it life would be hardly worth the living, for it would be only the life of 
the brute. All schemes of evolution which ignore this freedom of God are pantheistic in 
their tendencies, for they practically deny both God's transcendence and his personality. 

Leibnitz declined to accept the Newtonian theory of gravitation because It seemed 
to him to substitute natural forces for God. In our own day many still refuse 
to accept the Darwinian theory of evolution because it seems to them to substitute 
natural forces for God ; see John Fiske, Idea of Qod, 07-102. But law is only a method ; 
it presupposes a lawgiver and requires an agent. Gravitation and evolution are but 
the habitual operations of God. If spontaneous generation should be proved true, it 
would be only God's way of originating life. E. G. Robinson, Christian Theology, 91 — 
'* Spontaneous generation does not preclude the idea of a creative will working by 
natural law and secondary causes. ... Of beginnings of life physical science knows 
nothing. ... Of the processes of nature science- Is competent to speak and against its 



THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF CREATION. 391 

teachings respecting these there is no need that theolofiry should set itself in hostility. 
. . . Even if man were derived from the lower animals, it would not prove that God 
did not create and order the forces employed. It may be that God bestowed upon ani- 
mal life a plastic power/* 
Ward, Naturalism and Agnosticism, 1 : 180 — " It is far truer to say that the universe 

is a life, than to say that it is a mechanism We can never get to God through a 

mere mechanism. . . . With Leibnitz I would argue that absolute passivity or inertness 
is not a reality but a limit. 269 — Mr. Spencer grants that to Interpret spirit in terms of 
matter is impossible. 903 — Natural selection without teleological factors is not adequate 
to account for biological evolution, and such teleological factors imply a psychical 
something endowed with feelings and will, i. e., Life and Mind. 2 : 190-135— Conation is 
more fundamental than cognition. 149-151 — Things and events precede space and time. 
There is no empty space or time. 252-257 — Our assimilation of nature is the greeting of 
spirit by spirit. 259-267 — Either nature is itself intelligent, or there is intelligence beyond 
it. 274-276— Appearances do not veil reality. 274— The truth is not God and mech- 
anism, but God only and no mectianism. 283— Naturalism and Agnosticism, in spite of 
themselves, lead us to a world of Spiritualistic Monism.'* Newman Smsrth, Christian 
Ethics, 36 — ** Spontaneous generation is a fiction in ethics, as It is in psychology and 
biology. The moral cannot be derived from the non-moral, any more than consdous- 
ness can be derived from the unconscious, or life from the azoic rocks.*' 

IV. The Mosaio Account op Creation. 

1. Its twofold nature, — as uniting the ideas of creation and of develop- 
ment. 

( a ) Creation is asserted. — The Mosaic narrative avoids the error of mak- 
ing the universe eternal or the result of an eternal process. The cosmogony 
of Genesis, unlike the cosmogonies of the heathen, is prefaced by the 
originating act of God, and is supplemented by successive manifestations 
of creative power in the introduction of brute and of human life. 

All nature- worship, whether it take the form of ancient polytheism or modem mate- 
rialism, looks upon the universe only as a birth or growth. This view has a basis of 
truth, inasmuch as it regards natural forces as having a real existence. It is false in 
regarding these forces as needing no originator or upholder. Hcsiod taught that in the 
beginning was formless matter. Genesis does not begin thus. God is not a demiurge, 
working on eternal matter. God antedates matter. He is the creator of matter at the 
first ( GfliL 1:1 — bara ) and he subsequently created animal life ( 6<n. 1 : 21 — " and God oroated " 
— bara ) and the life of man ( 6«n. i : 27 — " and God ertttod man " — bara again ). 

Many statements of the doctrine of evolution err by regarding it as an eternal or 
self-originated process. But the process requires an originator, and the forces require 
an upholder. Each forward step implies increment of encrgry, and progress toward a 
rational end implies intelligence and foresight in the governing power. Schurman says 
well that Darwinism explains the survival of the fittest, but cannot explain the arrival of 
the fittest. Schurman, Agnosticism and Religion, 34 — "A primitive chaos of star-dust 
which held in its womb not only the cosmos that fills space, not only the living crea- 
tures that teem upon it, but also the intellect that interprets it, the will that confronts 
it, and the conscience that transfigures it, must as certainly have God at the centre, 
as a universe mechanically arranged and periodically adjusted must have him at the 
circumference. . . . There is no retU antagonism between creation and evolution. 69 — 
Natural causation is the expression of a supernatural Mind in nature, and man — a 
being at once of sensibility and of rational and moral self-activity — is a signal and 
ever-present example of the Intc^rf usion of the natural with the supernatural in that 
part of universal existence nearest and best known to us." 

Seebohm, quoted in J. J. Murphy, Nat. Selection and Spir. Freedom, 76 — " When we 
admit that Darwin's argument in favor of the theory of evolution proves its truth, we 
doubt whether natural selection can be in any sense the cause of the origin of spe- 
cies. It has probably played an important part in the history of evolution ; its r6le has 
been that of increasing the rapidity with which tlie process of de^^elopment has pro- 
ceeded. Of itself it has probably been powerless to originate a species ; the machinery 
by which species have been evolved has been completely independent of natural seleo- 



892 THE WORKS OF GOD. 

tion and oouM have produoed all the results which we call the evolution of species 
without its aid ; thou^rh the process would have been slow had there been no strugrgle 
of life to increase its pace." New World, June, 1896 : 237-282, art by Howison on the 
Limits of Evolution, finds limits in ( 1 ) the noumenal Reality ; ( 2 ) the break between 
the organic and the inorganic ; (3) break between physiological and logical genesis; 
(4) inability to explain the great fact on which its own movement rests; (5) the a 
priori self -consciousness which is the essential being and true person of the mind. 

Evolution, according to ^Herbert Spencer, is ** an integration of matter and concomi- 
tant dissipation of motioou during which the matter passes from an indefinite inco- 
herent homogeneity to a definite coherent heterogeneity, and during which the retained 
motion goes through a paraUel transformation.** D. W. Simon criticizes this definition 
as defective " because ( 1 ) it omits all mention both of energy and its differentia- 
tions; and (2) because it introduces into the definition of the process one of the phe- 
nomena thereof, namely, motion. As a matter of fact, both energy or force, and law, 
are subsequently and illicitly introduced as distinct factors of the process : they ought 
therefore to have found recognition in the definition or description.*' Mark Hopkins, 
life, 189—** Gk)d : what need of him ? Have we not force, uniform force, and do not 
all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation, if it ever had a 
beginning ? Have we not the rh vav, the universal All, the Soul of the universe, work- 
ing itself up from unconsciousness through molecules and maggots and mice and mar- 
mots and monkeys to its highest culmination in man ? ** 

( 6 ) Development is recognized. — The Mosaic account represents the 
present order of things as the result, not simply of original creation, but 
also of subsequent arrangement and development. A fashioning of inor- 
ganic materials is described, and also a use of these materials in providing 
the conditions of organized existence. Life is described as reproducing 
itself, after its first introduction, according to its own laws and by virtue of 
its own inner energy. 

Martensen wrongly asserts that ** Judaism represented the world exclusively as crea- 
turOn, not natura ; as xnVic, not ^v(rif .** This is not true. Creation is represented as the 
bringing forth, not of something dead, but of something living and capable of self- 
development. Creation lajrs the foundation for cosmogony. Not only is there a fash- 
iouing and arrangement of the material which the original creative act has brought 
into being (see G«iLi :2,4, 6, 7, 9, 16,17; 2:2, 6,7, 8 ~ Spirit brooding; dividing light from dark- 
ness, and waters from waters; dry land appearing; setting apart of sun, moon, and 
stars ; mist watering ; forming man's body ; planting garden ) but there is also au 
imparting and using of the productive powers of the things and beings created (6«n. 1 : 12, 
22, 24, 28 — earth brought forth grass ; trees yielding fruit whose seed was in itself ; 
earth brought forth the living creatures ; man commanded to be fruitful and multiply). 

The tendency at present among men of science is to regard the whole history of life 
upon the planet as the result of evolution, thus excluding creation, both at the begin- 
ning of the history and along its course. On the progress from the Orohippus, the 
lowest member of the equine series, an animal with four toes, to Anchitherium with 
three, then to Hipparion, and finally to our common horse, see Huxley, in Nature for 
May 11, 1873 : 33, 34. He argues that, if a complicated animal like the horse has arisen by 
gnmdual modification of a lower and less specialized form, there is no reason to think 
that other animals have arisen in a different way. Clarence King, Address at Yale Col- 
lege, 1877, regards American geology as teaching the doctrine of sudden yet natural 
modification of species. '* When catastrophic change burst in upon the ages of uni- 
formity and sounded in the ear of evevy living thing the words : * Change or die I * 
plasticity became the solo principle of action." Nature proceeded then by leaps, and 
corresponding to the leaps of geology we find leaps of biology. 

Wo grrant the probability that the great majority of what we call species were pro- 
duced in some such ways. If science should render it certain that all the present species 
of living creatures were derived by natural descent from a few original germs, and 
that these germs were themselves an evolution of inorganic forces and materials, we 
should not therefore regard the Mosaic account as proved untrue. We should only be 
required to revise our interpretation of the word hara in Gen. i : 21, 27, and to give it there 
tlio meaning of mediate creation, or creation by law. Such a meaning might almost 
seem to bo favored by G«il i : 11 — " let tho eanh pat forth grus " ; 20 — " let tlM vatara bring fortk abun- 




THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF CREATIOK. 393 

4uajaiaoTiBgerMtut that kAth lift"; 2:7 — "tha lord God foraud man of tha dost"; 9 — "oat of tbe ground 
■•do tke lord God to provenrytZM"; c/. Ibrk 4:28 — avrofiiLn} ^ y^ Kapa-o^opci — " tko ourth brings fortli 
friit tatonatioaUy/* Goethe, Sprttche in Reimen : ** Was wlir eia Gott dor nur von auasen 
•tlesK, Im Kreifl das All am Finger laufen liesse ? Ihm ziemt's die Welt im Innom zu 
bewegcn, Sich in Natur, Natur in slch zu hegen. So daas, was in Ihm lebt und webt und 
Ist, Nie seine Kraft, nie seincn Geist vormlsst '*—*' No, such a God my worship may not 
win. Who lets the world about his finger spin, A thing eternal ; God must dwell within.** 

All the growth of a tree takes place in from four to six weeks in May, June and July. 
The addition of woody fibre between the bark and the trunk results, not by imparta- 
tion into it of a now foroe from without, but by the awakening of the life within. 
Environment changes and growth begins. We may even speak of an immauont tran- 
soendenoeofGkNl- an unexhausted vitality which at times makes great movements 
forward. This is what the ancients were trying to express when they said that trees were 
inhabl tod by dryads and so groaned and blod when wounded. God's life is in aU. In 
evolution we cannot say, with LeConte, that the higher form of energy is ** derived 
from the lower.** Bather let us say that both the higher and the lower are constantly 
dependent for their being on the will of God. The lower is only God's preparation for 
his higher self-manifestation ; see Upton, Hibbert Lectures, 165, 166. 

Even Haeckel, Hist. Creation, 1 : 38, can say that in the Mosaic narrative ** two great 
and fundamental ideas meet us — the idea of separation or diflTereutiatlon, and the idea 
of progressive development or perfecting. We can bi^stow our Just and sincere admir- 
ation on the Jewish lawgiver's grand insight into nature, and hi9 simple and natural 
hypothesis of creation, without discovering in it a divine revelation.** Henry Drum- 
mond, whose first book. Natural Law in the Spiritual World, he himself in his later days 
regretted as tending in a deterministic and materialistic direction, came to believe 
rather in *' spiritual law in the natural world.'* His Ascent of Man regards evolution 
and law as only the methods of a present Deity. Darwinism eecmod at first to show 
that the past history of life upon the planet was a history of heartless and cruel slaugh- 
tor. The survival of the fittest had for its obverse side the destruction of myriads. 
Nature was ** red in tooth and claw with ravine." But further thought has shown that 
this gloomy view results from a partial induction of facts. Palseontological life was 
not only a struggle for life, but a struggle for the life of others. The beginnings of 
altruism are to be seen in the instinct of reproduction and in the care of offspring. In 
every lion's den and tiger's lair, in every mother-eagle's feeding of her young, there 
is a self-sacrifice which faintly shadows forth man's subordination of personal interests 
to the interests of others. 

Dr. George Harris, in his Moral Evolution, has added to Drummord's doctrine the 
further consideration that the struggle for one's own life has its moral side as well as 
the struggle for the life of others. The instinct of self-preservation is the beginning 
of right, righteousness. Justice and law upon earth. Every creature owes it to God to 
preserve its own being. So we can find an adumbration of morality even in the preda- 
tory and internecine warfare of the geologic ages. The immanent God was even then 
preparing the way for the rights, the dignity, the freedom of humanity. B. P. Bowne, 
in the Independent, April 19, 1900—" The Copernican sjrstem made men dizzy for a time, 
and they held on to the Ptolemaic system to escape vertigo. In like manner the con- 
ception of God, as revealing himself in a great historic movement and process, in the 
conscienoes and lives of holy men, in the unfolding life of the church, makes dizzy the 
believer in a dictated book, and he longs for some fixed word that shall be sure and 
stedfast." God is not limited to creating from without : he can also create from within ; 
and development is as much a part of creation as is the origination of the elements. 
For further discussion of man's origin, see section on Man a Creation of God, in our 
treatment of Anthropology. 

2. Its proper interpretation. 

We adopt neither ( a ) the allegorical, or mythical, ( 6 ) the hyperliteral, 
nor (c) tibe hyperscientific interpretation of the Mosaic narrative ; but 
rather (d) the inctorial-summary interpretation, — which holds that the 
account is a rough sketch of the history of creation, true in all its essential 
features, but presented in a graphic form suited to the common mind and 
to earlier as well as to later ages. Wliilo conveying to primitive man as 
accurate an idea of God's work as man was able to comprehend, the revela- 



394 THE WORKS OF GOD. 

tion was yet given in pregnant language, so that it oonld expand to all the 
ascertained results of subsequent physical research. This general corres- 
pondence of the narrative with the teachings of science, and its power to 
adapt itself to every advance in human knowledge, differences it from every 
other cosmogony current among men. 

(a) The aUegoricdl^ or mythical interpretation represenfs the Moeaio aooount as 
embodyin^rf like the Indian and Greek cosmofironlee, the poetic speculations of an early 
race as to the origin of the present system. We object to this Interpretation upon the 
grround that the narrative of creation Is inseparably connected with the succeedln^r 
history, and is therefore most naturally regarded as itself historlcaL This connection 
of the narrative of ereation with the subsequent history, moreover, prevents us from 
believing it to be the description of a vision granted to Moses. It is more probably the 
record of an original revelation to the first man, handed down to Moees' time, and used 
by Moses as a proper introduction to his history. 

We object also to the view of some higher critics that the book of Genesis contains 
two inconsistent stories. Marcus Dods, Book of Genesis, 2—** The compiler of this 
book . . . lays side by side two accounts of man's creation which no ingenuity can recon- 
cile.*' Charles A. Briggs : ** The doctrine of creation in Gtoneeis 1 is altogether differ- 
ent from that taught in Genesis 2." W. N. Clarke. Christian Theology, 199-201 — ** It has 
been commonly assumed that the two are parallel, and tell one and the same story ; 
but examination shows that this is not the case. . • . We have here the record of a 
tradition, rather than a revelation. ... It cannot be taken as literal history, and it 
does not tell by divine authority how man was created." To these utterances we reply 
that the two accounts are not inconsistent but complementary, the first chapter of 
Genesis describing manVi creation as the crown of God's general work, the second 
describing man^s creation with greater particularity as the beginning of human 
history. 

Canon Rawlinson, in Aids to Eaith, 275, compares the Mosaic account with the cos- 
mogony of Berosus, the Chaldean. Pfleidercr, Philos. of Kellgion, 1 : 267--72, gives an 
account of heathen theories of the origin of the universe. Anazagoras was the first 
who represented the chaotic first matter as formed through the ordering understand* 
ing ( vov^ ) of God, and Aristotle for that reason called him ** the first sober one among 
many drunken.'* Schurman, Belief in God, 138 — " In these cosmogonies the world and 
the gods grow up together ; cosmogony is, at the same time, theogony." Dr. K G. 
Robinson : ** The Bible writers believed and intended to state that the world was made 
in three literal days. But, on the principle that God may have meant more than they 
did, the doctrine of periods may not be inconsistent with their account." For com. 
parison of the Biblical with heathen cosmogonies, see Blackie in Theol. Eclectic, 1 : 77- 
87; Guyot, Creation, 58-63; Pope, Theology, 1:401, 402; Bible Commentary, 1:36,48; 
Mcllvaine, Wisdom of Holy Scripture, 1-54 ; J. F. Clarke, Ten Great lleligiona, 2 : 193- 
221. For the theory of * prophetic vision,' see Kurtz, Hist, of Old Covenant, Introd., 
i-zxxvii, civ-cxzx ; and Hugh Miller, Testimony of the Rocks, 179-310; Hastings, Diet. 
Bible, art.: Cosmogony; Sayce, Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia, 872-397. 

( b ) The hyperlUeral interpretation would withdraw the narrative from all compar- 
ison with the conclusions of science, by putting the ages of geological history between 
the first and second verses of Gen. 1, and by making the remainder of the chapter an 
account of the fitting up of the earth, or of some limited portion of it, in six days of 
twenty-four hours each. Among the advocates of this view, now generally discarded, 
are Chalmers, Natural Theology, Works, 1 : 228-258, and John Pye Smith, Mosaic Account 
of Creation, and Scripture and Geology. To this view we object that there is no indica- 
tion, in the Mosaic narrative, of so vast an interval between the first and the second 
verses ; that there is no indication. In the geological history, of any such break between 
the ages of preparation and the present time (see Hugh Miller, Testimony of the 
Rocks, 141-178) ; and that there are indications In the Mosaic record itself that the word 
'* day " is not used in its literal sense ; while the other Scriptures unquestionably employ 
it to designate a period of indefinite duration (6«n. 1 :5— "God ealledthe lightDaj"— a day 
before there was a sun ; 8— "there vas erening and there was morning, a seeond day " ; 2 : 2 — God 
" rested on the seTenth day " ; c/.Eeb.4: 3-10— where God's day of rest seems to continue, and 
his people are exhorted to enter into it ; Gen. 2:4 — "the day thai Jehorah made earth and hearen" 
— "day" here covers all the seven days ; c/.Is.2:12— "aday of JehoTahofhosis"; Ze6h.l4:7 — "it 
shall be one day vhieh is known nnto JehoTah; not day, and not night"; 2Pet.3:8— "oneday is with the Lord as 




THB MOSAIC ACCCUNT OF CREATION. 395 

a ttoQMid jmn, and a tbouud jmn as oim (Uy " ). Guyot, Creation, 34, objects also to this inter- 
pretation, that the narrative purports to give a history of the making of the heavens 
as well as of the earth(G«a.2:4~"tkeM an the gvMntioai of the haaTMi and oftha earth"), whereas 
this interpretation confines the history to the earth. On the moaning of the word "day/* 
as a period of indefinite duration, see Dana, Manual of Qeology* 744 ; LeConte, Religion 
and Science, 283. 

( e) The hypcrscientiflc inUrpretatUm would find in the narrative a minute and pre- 
cise correspondence with the geological record. This is not to be expected, since it is 
foreign to the purpose of revelation to teach science. Although a general concord 
between the Mosaic and geological histories may be pointed out, it is a needless embar- 
rassment to compel ourselves to find in every detail of the former an accurate state- 
ment of some scientific fact. ¥ht more probable we hold to be 

( d ) The pictoriai-mimmary inUrpretation, Before explaining this in detail, we would 
premise that we do not hold this or any future scheme of reconciling Genesis and geol- 
ogy to be a finality. Such a settlement of all the questions involved would presuppose 
not only a perfected science of the physical universe, but also a perfected science of 
hermeneutics. It is enough if we can offer tentative solutions which represent the 
present state of thought upon the subject. Remembering, then, that any such scheme 
of reconciliation may speedily be outgrown without prejudice to the truth of the 
Scripture narrative, we present the following as an approximate account of the coin- 
cidences between the Mosaic and the geological records. The scheme here given is a 
combination of the conclusions of Dana and Guyot, and assumes the substantial truth 
of the nebular hypothesis. It is interesting to observe that Augustine, who knew 
nothing of modem science, should have reached, by simple study of the text, some of 
the same results. See his Confessions, 12 :8~'* First God created a chaotic matter, 
which was next to nothing. This chaotic matter was made from nothing, before all 
days. Then this chaotic, amorphous matter was subsequently arranged, in the suc- 
ceeding six days'^ ; De Genes, ad Lit., 4:27— ''The length of these days is not to be 
determined by the length of our weck-dajrs. There is a series in both cases, and that 
is all.** We proceed now to the scheme : 

1. The earth, if originally in the condition of a gaseous fluid, must have been void 
and formless as described in Geneais i : 2. Here the earth is not yet separated from the 
condensing nebula, and its fluid condition is indicated by the term "watera." 

2. The beginning of activity in matter would manifest itself by the production of 
light, since light is a resultant of molecular activity. This corresponds to the state- 
ment in Terse 3. As the result of condensation, the nebula becomes luminous, and this 
process from darkness to light is described as follows : "there vaa eTening and there traa moroing, 
one day." Here we have a day without a sun — a feature in the narrative quite consistent 
with two facts of science : first, that the nebula would naturally be self-luminous, and, 
secondly, that the earth proper, which reached its present form before the sun, would, 
when it was thrown off, bo itself a self-luminous and molten mass. The day was there- 
fore continuous —day without night. 

3. The development of the earth into an independent sphere and its separation from 
the fluid axound it answers to thedividing of "the waters under the firmament from the waters aboTo," 
in Terse 7. Here the word " waters" is used to designate the ** primonlial cosmic material" 
( Guyot, Creation, 3.>->')7 ), or the molten mass of earth and sun united, from which the 
earth is thrown off. The term "waters" is the best which the Hebrew language affords to 
express this idea of a fluid mass. Pa. 148 seems to have this meaning, whore it speaks of 
the *' waters that are abore the heaTens" (Terse 4)— waters which are distinguished from the 
*'deepa" below ( Terse 7 ), and the " Tapor " above ( Terse 8 ). 

4. The production of the earth's physical features by the partial condensation of the 
vapors which cnvoloix>il the igneous sphere, and by the consequent outlining of the 
continents and oceans, is next described in Terse 9 as the gathering of the waters into one 
place and the appearing of the dry land. 

5. The expression of the idea of life in the lowest plants, since it was in type and 
effect the creation of the vegetable kingdom, is next described in Terse 11 as a bringing 
into existence of the characteristic forms of that kingdom. This precedes all mention 
of animal life, since the vegetable kingdom is the natural basis of the animal. If it be 
said that our earliest fossils are animal, we reply that the earliest vegetable forms, the 
cUg<B^ were easily dissolved, and might as easily disappear ; that graphite and bog-iron 
ore, appearing lower down than any animal remains, are the result of preceding vege- 
tation; that animal forms, whenever and wherever existing, must subsist upon and 
presuppose the vegetable. The EozoOn is of necessity preceded by the Eophyte. If it 



896 THE WORKS OF QOD. 

be said that fruit-trees oonM not hare been created on the third day, we reply that 
sinoe the oreatioo of the vegetable kingdom was to be described at one stroke and no 
mention of it was to be made subsequently, this is the proper place to introduce it and 
to mention its main characteristic forms. See Bible Commentary, 1 : 36 ; LeOonte, 
Elements of Geology, 136, 28&. 

6. The vapors which have hitherto shrouded the planet are now cleared away as pre* 
Uminary to the introduction of life in its higher animal forms. The consequent 
appearance of solar light is described in y^nm 16 and 17 as a mukiug of the sun, moon, and 
stars, and a giving of them as luminaries to the earth. Compare 6«il 9 : 1S~"I do Mt my 
bow in th« doad." As the rainbow had existed in nature before, but was now appointed to 
serve a peculiar purpose, so in the record of creation sun, moon and stars, which existed 
before, were appointed as visible lights for the earth, — and that for the reason that the 
earth was no longer self-luminous, and the light of the sun stru^gliug through the 
earth's encompassing clouds was not sufficient for the higher forms of life which were 
to come. 

7. The exhibition of the four grand types of the animal kingdom ( radiate, molluscan, 
articulate, vertebrate ), which characterizes the next stage of geological progress, is 
represented in nnss 20 and 21 as a creation of the lower animals— those that swarm in 
the waters, and the creeping and flying species of the land. Huxley, in his American 
Addresses, objects to this assigning of the origin of birds to the fifth day, and declares 
that terrestrial animals exist in lower strata than any form of bird,— birds appearing 
only in the OOlitic, or New Ked Sandstone. But we reply that the fifth day is devoted 
to sea-productions, while land-productions belong to the sixth. Birds, according to the 
latest science, are sea-productions, not land-productions. They originated from Sauri- 
ans, and were, at the first, flying lizards. There being but one mention of sea-produc- 
tions, all these, birds included, are crowded into the fifth day. Thus (Genesis antici- 
pates the latest science. On the ancestry of birds, see Pop. Science Monthly, 3larch, 
1884 : 606 ; Baptist Magazine, 1877 : 6U5. 

8. The introduction of mammals— viviparous species, which arc eminent above all 
other vertebrates for a quality prophetic of a high moral purpose, that of suckling their 
young— is indicated in Ttrm 24 and 25 by the creation, on the sixth day, of cattle and 
beasts of prey. 

9. Man, the first being of moral and intellectual qualities, and the first in whom the 
unity of the great design has full expression, forms in both the Mosaic and geologic 
record the last step of progress in creation ( see rerMi 26-31 ). With Prof. Dana, we may 
say that ** in this succession we observe not merely an order of events like that deduced 
from science ; there is a system in the arrangement, and a far-reaching prophecy, to 
which philosophy could not have attained, however instructed.*' See Dana, Manual 
of Geology, 741-746, and Bib. Sac, April, 1885 : 301-224. Richard Owen : '' Man from the 
beginning of organisms was ideally present upon the earth " ; see Owen, Anatomy of 
Vertebrates, 3 : 796 ; Louis Agassiz: **Man is the purpose toward which the whole 
animal creation tends from the first appearance of the first palieozoic fish." 

Prof. John M. Taylor : ** Man is not merely a mortal but a moral being. If he sinks 
below this plane of life he misses the path marked out for him by all his past develop- 
ment. In order to progress, the higher vertebrate bad to subordinate everything to 
mental development. In order to become human it had to develop the rational intelli- 
gence. In order to become higher man, present man must subordinate everything to 
moral development. This is the great law of animal and human development clearly 
revealed in the sequence of physical and psychical functions." W. E. Qladstone in S. 
8. Times, April 26, 1890, calls the Mosaic days ** chapters in the history of creation." He 
objects to calling them epochs or periods, because they are not of equal length, and 
they sometimes overlap. But he defends the general correspondence of tho Mosaic 
narrative with the latest conclusions of science, and remarks : ** Any man whose labor 
and duty for several scores of years has included as their central point the study of the 
means of making himself intelligible to the mass of men, is in a far better position to 
Judge what would be the forms and methods of si>eech proper for the Mosaic writer to 
adopt, than the most perfect Hebraist as such,. or the most consummate votary of 
physical science as such.*' 

On the whole subject, see Quyot, Creation ; Review of Guyot, in N. Eng., July, 1884 : 
691-694 ; Tayler Lewis, Six Days of Creation ; Thompson. Man in Genesis and in Geology ; 
Agassiz, in Atlantic Monthly, Jan. 1874 ; Dawson, Story of the Earth and Man, 33, and 
in Expositor, Apl. 1886; LeConte, Science and Religion, 264 ; Hill, in Bib. Sac, April, 
1876; Pelroe, Ideality in the Physical Sciences, 38-72 ; Boardman,The Creative Week; 



god's end IX CREATIOK. 397 

Oodet, Bib. Studies of O. T^ 66-138; BeU, in Nature, Not. 24 and Deo. 1, 1888; W. E 
Gladstone, in Nineteenth Gentury« Not. 1886 : 685-707, Jan. 1886 : 1, 176 ; reply by Huxley, 
in Nineteenth Century, Deo. 1886, and Feb. 1886; Schmid, Theories of Darwin; Bart- 
lett. Sources of History In the Pentateuch, 1-36; Gotterill, Does Science Aid Faith in 
Regard to Creation ? Cox, Miracles, 1-38 — chapter 1, on the Original Miracle — that of 
Creation ; ZGckler. Thoologie und Naturwiasenschaft, and Urgeschichte, 1-77; Beuaoh, 
Bib. SchtSpf ungsgoschlohte. On difficulties of the nebular hypothesis, see Stallo, Mod- 
ern Physics, 277-293. 

V. God's End in Cbeation. 

Infinite msdom most, in creating, propose to itself the most comprehen- 
sive and the most valuable of ends, — the end most worthy of Gk)d, and the 
end most fmitf al in good. Only in the light of the end proposed can we 
properly jndge of God's work, or of God's character as revealed therein. 

It would seem that Scripture should give us an answer to the question : Why did 
God create? The great Architect can best tell bis own design. Ambrose: *' To whom 
shall I give greater credit concerning Ood than to God himself ? " George A. Gordon, 
New Epoch for Ftilth, 16 — ** God is necessarily a being of ends. Teleology is the warp 
and woof of humanity; it must be in tlie warp and woof of Deity. Evolutionary 
science has but strengthened this view. Natural science is but a mean disguise for 
ignorancti if it does not imply cosmical purpose. The movement of life from lower to 
higher is a movement upon ends. Will is the last account of the universe, and will is 
the faculty for ends. The moment one concludes that God is, it appears certain that 
he is a being of ends. The universe is alive with desire and movement. Fundamentally 
it is throughout an expression of will. And it follows, that the ultimate end of God in 
human history must be worthy of himself." 

In determining this end, we turn first to : 

1. The teatiinony of Scripture. 

This may be summed up in four statements. God finds his end ( a ) in 
himself ; ( ^> ) in his own will and pleasure ; ( c ) in his own glory ; ( d ) in 
the making known of his power, his wisdom, his holy name. All these 
statements may be combined in the following, namely, that God's supreme 
end in creation is nothing outside of himself, but is his own glory — in the 
revelation, in and through creatures, of the infinite perfection of his own 
being. 

(a) Rom. 11:36 -"unto him are all things"; CoL 1:16 — "all things hare been ereat«d .... unto him'* 
( Christ); comparcls. 48 : 11 — " for mine ovn sake, for mine own sake, willldoit .... andmjgiorj willl 
not gire to another " ; and 1 Cor. 15 : 28 — "subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all" ProTerbi 16 :4 
— not ** The Lord bath made all thin^ for himself *' ( A. V. ) but " Jehorah hath made STery- 
thing for its own end " ( Rev. Vers.). 

( h ) Eph. 1 : 5, 6, 9 — " haying foreordained us ... . aooording to the good pleasure of his will, to tht pndis of 
the glorj of his grace .... mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure whioh he purpoied in him" ; Bar. 
4 : 11 — " thou ^dst create all things, and because of thy will they ware, and were ereated." 

( c ) Is. 43 : 7 — "whom I have created for my glory " ; 60 : 21 and 61 : 3 — the righteousness and bless- 
edness of the redeemed are secured, that "he may be glorified " ; Luke 2 : 14 — the angels* song 
at the birth of Christ expressed the design of the work of salvation : "Qloiy to God in tht 
highest," and only through, and for its sake, " on earth peace among man in whom he is well pleased." 

( (I ) Ps. 143 : 11 — " In thy righteousness bring my soul out of trouble "; Kb. 36 : 21, 22— " I do not this for your 
sake .... bat for mine holy name"; 39:7— "my holy name will Jmake known"; &om.9:i7 — to Pharaoh: 
* For this rery purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published 
abroad in all the earth " ; 22, 23— "riches of his glory" made known In vessels of wrath, and in 
vessels of mercy ; Sph. 3 : 9, 10 — " created all things ; to the intent that now unto the principalities and the 
powers in the hearenly places might be made known through the church the manifbld wisdom of God." See Godet, 
on Ultimate Design of Man; " God in man and man in God,'* in Princeton Rev^ Nov. 
1880 ; Hodge, Syst. Theol., 1 : 436, 635, 565, 5G8. Per contra, see MiUer, Fetloh in Theology, 
19,dlM5, 88-98, 143-146. 



398 THE W0BK8 OP GOD. 

Since holiness is the fondamental attribute in Gk)d, to make himself, his 
own pleasure, his own glory, his own manifestation, to be his end in crea- 
tion, is to find his chief end in his own holiness, its maintenance, expres- 
sion, and communication. To make this his chief end, however, is not to 
exclude certain subordinate ends, such as the revelation of his wisdom, 
'power, and love, and the consequent happiness of innumerable creatures to 
whom this revelation is made. 

Gk)d*8 glory is that which makes him glorious. It is not something* without, like the 
praise and esteem of men, but something within, like the dignity and value of his own 
attributes. To a noble man, praise is very distasteful unless he is conscious of some- 
thing in himself that Justifies it. We muigt be like God to be self-respecting. Pythag- 
oras said well : ** lian's end is to be like God." And so God must look within, and 
find his honor and his end in himself. Robert Browning, Hohenstiel-Schwangau : 
** This is the glory, that in all conceived Or felt or known, I recognize a Mind, Not 
mine but like mine,— for the double Joy Making all things for me, and me for Him.*' 
Schurman, Belief in God, 214-216—" Qcd glorifies himself in communicating himself." 
The object of his love is the exercise of his holiness. Self-affirmation conditions self- 
communication. 

E. G. Robinson, Christian Theology, 94, 196— *' Law and gospel are only two sides of 
the one object, the highest glory of God in the highest good of man .... Nor is it 
unworthy of God to make himself his own end : (a ) It is both unworthy and criminal 
for a finite being to make himself his own end, because it is an end that can bo reached 
only by degrading self and wronging others ; but ( b ) For an infinite Creator not to 
make himself his own end would be to dishonor himself and wrong his creatures ; since, 
thereby, Ce) he must cither act without an end, which is irrational, or from an end which 
is impossible without wronging his creatures ; because ( d ) the highest welfare of his 
creatures, and consequently their happiness, is impossible except through the subor- 
dination and conformity of their wills to that of their infinitely perfect Ruler; and 
(e) without this t^ighest welfare and happiness of his creatures God's own end itself 
becomes impossible, for he is glorified only as his character is rofloctod in, and recog- 
nized by, his intelligent creatures." Creation can add nothing to the essential wealth 
or worthiness of God. If the end were outside himself, it would make him depend- 
ent and a servant. The old theologians therefore spoke of God's ** declarative glory," 
rather than God's ** essential glory," as resulting from man's obedience and salvation. 

2. The testimony of reason. 

That his own glory, in the sense just mentioned, is Gk>d's supreme end 
in creation, is evident from the following considerations : 

( a ) God*s own glory is the only end actually and perfectly attained in 
the universe. Wisdom and omnipotence cannot choose an end which is 
destined to be forever unattained ; for ** what his soul desireth, even that 
he doeth" (Job 23 :13). God's supreme end cannot be the happiness of 
creatures, since many are miserable here and will be miserable forever. 
God*s supremo end cannot be the holiness of creatures, for many are 
unholy here and will be unholy forever. But while neither the holiness 
nor the happiness of creatures is actimlly and perfectly attained, God*s 
glory is made known and will be made known in both the saved and the 
lost. This then must be God's supreme end in creation. 

This doctrine teaches us that none can frustrate God*8 plan. God will get glory out 
of every human life. Man may glorify God voluntarily by love and obedience, but if 
he will not do this he will Ik) compelled to glorify God by his rejection and punishment. 
Better be the moltrn iron that runs freely into the mold prepared by the great 
Designer, than hi", the hanl and cold iron that must be hammered into shape. Cleanthes, 
quoted by Seneca : ** Diicunt volentem futn, nolentem trahunt." W. C. Wilkinson, 
Bplcof Saul, 271 — ''But some are tools, and others ministers. Of God, who works his 
holy will with alL" Christ baptizes "in the lolj ^i and m fin" (]lAt.3:li). Alexander 




god's ekd in creation. 399 

McLaren : " There are two fires, to one or other of which we must be delivered. Either 
we shall gladly accept the purifying fire of the Spirit which bums sin out of us, or we 
shall have to meet the punitive fire which bums up us and our sins together. To be 
cleansed by the one or to be consumed by the other is the choice before each one of 
us." Hare, Mission of the Ck)mforter, on John 16 : 8, shows that the Holy Spirit either 
convinces those who yield to his influence, or convicts those who resist — the word cAc'yx** 
having this double significance. 

( 6 ) Gkxi's glory is the end intrinsioally most valuable. The good of 
creatures is of insignificant importance compared with this. Wisdom dic- 
tates that the greater interest should have precedence of the less. Because 
Qod can choose no greater end, he must choose for his end himself. But 
this is to choose his holiness, and his glory in the manifestation of that 
holiness. 

It. 40 : 15, 16 — "Behold, the nations are u a drop of a basket, and are oonntad as the small dnst of the balanee '* 
—like the drop that falls unobserved from the bucket, like the fine dust of the scales 
which the tradesman takes no notice of in weighing, so are all the combined millions of 
earth and heaven before God. He created, and he can in an instant destroy. The uni- 
verse is but a drop of dew upon the fringe of his garment. It is more Important that 
God should be glorified than that the universe should be happy. As we read in Heb. 6 : 18 
— " sinoe he ooold svear by none greater, he svaxe bj himself "— so here we may say : Because he could 
choose no greater end in creating, he chose himself. But to swear by himself is to swear 
by his holiness ( Pi. 89 : 35 ). We infer that to find his end in himself is to find that end in 
his holiness. See Martineau on Malebrancbe, in Types, 177. 

The stick or the stone does not exist for itself, but for some consciousness. The soul 
of man exists in part for itself. But it is conscious that in a more important sense it 
exists for God. ** Modern thought/' it is said, ** worships and serves the creature more 
than the Creator ; indeed, the chief end of the Creator seems to be to glorify man and 
to enjoy him forever." So the small boy said his Catechism : ** Man's chief end is to 
glorify God and to annoy him forever." Prof. Clifford: "The kingdom of God is 
ol)8olete; the kingdom of man has now come.** All this is the insanity of sin. Per 
contra, see Allen, Jonathan Edwards, 329, 330— ^* Two things are plain in Edwards's 
doctrine : first, that God cannot love ansrthing other than himself : he is so great, so 
preponderating an amount of being, that what is left is hardly worth considering ; 
secondly, so far as God has any love for the creature, it is because he is himself dilTused 
therein : the fulness of his own essence has overflowed into an outer world, and that 
which he loves in created beings is his essence Imparted to them." But we would add 
that Edwards does not say they are themselves of the essence of God ; see his Works, 
2:210,211. 

( c ) His own glory is the only end which consists with God's independ- 
ence and sovereignty. Every being is dependent npon whomsoever or 
whatsoever he makes his ultimate end. If anything in the creature is the 
last end of God, God is dependent upon the creature. But since Qod is 
dependent only on himself, he must find in himself his end. 

To create is not to increase his blessedness, but only to reveal it. There is no need 
or deficiency which creation supplies. The creatures who derive all from him can add 
nothing to him. All our worship is only the rendering back to him of that which is his 
own. He notices us only for his own sake and not because our little rivulets of praise 
add anything to the ocean-like fulness of his Joy. For his own sake, and not because 
of our misery or our prayers, he redeems and exalts us. To make our pleasure and 
welfare his ultimate end would be to abdicate his throne. He creates, therefore, only 
for his own sake and for the sake of his glory. To this reasoning the London Spectator 
replies: ** The glory of God is the splendor of a manifestation, nottheintrinsio splendor 
manifested. The splendor of a manifestation, however, consists in the effect of the 
manifestation on those to whom it is given. Precisely because the manifestation of 
Qoi 's goodness can be useful to us and cannot be useful to him, must its manifestation 
be intended for our sake and not for his sake. We gain everything by It — he nothing, 
exoept so far as it is his own will that we should gain what he desires to bestow upon 



65245 



400 THE WORKS OP €K)D. 

U8.** lo this last dauae we find the acknowledirment of weacneM in the theory that 
God's supreme end is the good of his creatures. God does gain the fulfilment of his 
plan, the doing of his will, the manifestation of himself. The great painter loves his 
picture less than he loves his ideaL He paints In order to express himself. God loves 
each soul which he creates, but he loves yet more the expression of his own perfections 
in it. And this self-expression is his end. Robert Browning, Paracelsus, 54— *' God is 
the perfect Poet, Who in creation acts his own oonceptionB.** Shedd, Dogm. TheoL, 
1 : 357, 358 ; Shairp, Province of Poetiy, 11, IS. 

God's love makes him a self-expressing being. Self-expression is an inborn impulse 
in his creatures. All genius partakes of this characteristio of God. Sin substitutes 
conoeaimeot for outflow, and stops this self -communication which would make the 
good of each the good of alL Tet even sin cannot completely prevent it. The wicked 
man is impelled to confess. By natural law the secrets of all hearts wHl be made mani- 
fest at the Judgment. Regeneration restores the freedom and Joy of self-manifesta- 
tion. Christianity and confession of Christ are inseparable. The preacher is simply a 
Christian further advanced in this divine privilege. We need utterance. Prayer is the 
most complete self-expression, and God^ presenoe is the only land of perfectly free 
s]>oech. 

The great poet comes nearest, in the realm of secular things, to realiiing this privi- 
lege of the Christian. No great poet ever wrotQ his best work for money, or for fame, 
or even for the sake of doing good. Hawthorne was half-humorous and only partially 
sincere, when he said he would never have written a page except for pay. The hope 
of pay may have set bis pen a-golng, but only love for his work could have made that 
work what it is. Motley more truly declared that it was all up with a writer when he 
began to consider the money he was to receive. But Hawthorne needed the money to 
live on, wbllo Motley had a rich father and uncle to back him. The great writer cer- 
tainly absorbs himself in his work. With him necessity and freedom combine. He 
sings as the bird sings, witliout dogmatic intent. Tet he is great in proportion as he is 
moral and religious at heart. " Arma vlrumque cano " is the only first person singular 
in the /Eneid in which the author himself speaks, yet the whole iEneid is a revelation 
of Virgil. So we know little of Shakespeare's life, but much of Shakespeare's genius. 

Nothing is addc<i to the tree when it blossoms and bears fruit ; it only revfals its own 
inner natun;. Rut we must diMtinguish in man his true nature from his false nature. 
Not bis private peculiarities, but that in bira which is permanent and universal, is the 
real treasure uinm which the great poet draws. I/<mgfellow: " He is the greatest artist 
then. Whether of pencil or of pen. Who follows nature. Never man, as artist or as 
artizan, Pursuing his own fantasies. Can touch the human heart or please. Or satisfy our 
n<)l)l<?r n(«da." Tennyson, after observing the subaciueous life of a brook, exclaimed : 
*• What an imagination God has I " Caird, Philos. Religion, 345—" The world of finite 
intelligences, though distinct from God, is still in its ideal nature one with him. That 
which God creates, and by which he reveals the hidden treasures of his wisdom and 
love, is still not foreign to his own infinite life, but one with it. In the knowledge of 
the miuds that know him, in the self-surrender of the hearts that love him, it is no 
pcu^dox to affirm that he knows and loves himself.'* 

(d) His own glory is an end which comprehends and secures, as a sub- 
ordinate end, every interest of the universe. The interests of the universe 
are bound up in the interests of God. There is no holiness or happiness 
for creatures except as God is absolute sovereign, and is recognized as 
such. It is therefore not selfishness, but benevolence, for God to make 
his own glory the supreme object of creation. Glory is not vain-glory, and 
in exi^ressing his ideal, that is, in expressing himself, in his creation, he 
communicates to his creatures the utmost possible good. 

This self-expression is not scilfislmess but benevolence. As the true poet forgets 
hitnHclf in his work, so God docs not manifest himself for the sake of what he can make 
by it. Self-manifestation is an end in itself. But God's self-manifestation comprises 
all good to liLs creatures. We are bound to love ourselves and our own interests Just 
in proportion to the value of those interests. The monarch of a realm or the general 
of an army must be careful of his life, because the sacrifice of it may involve the loss 
of thousimds of lives of soldiers or subjects. So God is the heart of the great system. 
Only by being tributary to the heart can the members be supplied with streams of 



god's end in creation. 401 

bollnees and happiness. And so for only ono Beinfir In tho universe is it safe to live for 
himaolf. Man should not livu for himself, because there is a higher end. But there is 
no higher end for (iod. " Only ono bein^r in the universe is excepted from tho duty of 
subordination. Man must bo subject to the ' higher powsn ' ( Rom. 13 :1 ). But there are no 
higher powers to God.*' See Park, Discourses, 181-200. 

Bismarck's motto : ** Ohne Kaiser, keln Keich "— '* Without an emperor, there can be 
no empire" —applies to God, as Von Moltkc^s motto : '* Erst wHgen, dann wagen " -~ 
*^ First weigh, then dare '* — applies to man. Edwards, Works, 2 : 215— '' Selfishness is 
no otherwise vicious or unbecoming than as one is less than a multitude, ^he publio 
weal is of greater value than his particular interest. It is fit and suitable that God should 
value himself infloitcly more than his creatures.*' Shakespeare, Hamlet, 8:8— ''The 
single and peculiar life is bound With all the strength and armor of the mind To keep 
itself from noyanoe ; but much more That spirit upon whose weal depends and rests 
Tho lives of many. The cease of majesty Dies not alone, but like a gulf doth draw 
What 's near it with it : it is a massy wheel Fixed on the summit of the highest mount. 
To whose huge spokes ten thousand lesser things Are mortis'd and adjoined ; which , 
when it falls. Each small annexment, petty consequence. Attends the boisterous ruin. 
Never alone did the king sigh. But with a general groan." 

( 6 ) God's glory is the end which in a right moral system is proposed to 
creatures. This must therefore be the end which he in whose image they 
are made proposes to himself. He who constitutes the centre and end of 
all his creatures miist find his centre and end in himself. This principle 
of moral philosophy, and the conclusion drawn from it, are both explicitly 
and implicitly taught in Scripture. 

The beginning of all religion is the choosing of God's end as our end— the giving up 
of our preference of happiness, and the entrance upon a life devoted to God. That 
happiness is not the ground of moral obligation, is plain from the fact that there is no 
happiness in seeking happiness. That tho holiness of God is the ground of moral obli- 
gation, is plain from the fact that the search after holiness is not only successful in 
itself, but brings happiness also in its train. Archbishop Leighton, Works, 695 — *' It is 
a wonderful instance of wisdom and goodness that God has so connected bis own glory 
with our happiness, that we cannot properly intend tho ooe, but that the other must 
follow as a matter of course, and our own felicity is at last resolved into his eternal 
glory." That God will certainly secure the end for which he created, his own glory, 
and that his end is our end, is the true source of comfort in affliction, of strength in 
labor, of encouragement in prayer. See Psalm 25 : U — " For thj ojune's sake .... Pardon muM iniqoitf, 
for it isgroat " ; 115 : i — " Not onto ns, Jehorah, not onto ns, Bat onto thj name giro glory " ; Mat 6 : 33 — "Soek /• 
ftrat his kingdom, and his rightooosness ; and all these things shall be added anto 70a " ; 1 Cor. 10 : 31 — " Whether 
therelbre je eat, or drink, or whatsoeTer 70 do, do all to the glor7 of God " ; 1 Pet. 2 : 9 — "70 are an elect raee .... 
that 70 ma7 show forth the exoelleneies of him who called 70a Ow.* of darkness into his marreloos light " ; 4 : 11 — 
speaking, ministering, "that in all things God ma7 be glorifled through Jesos Christ, whose is the glor7 and the 
dominion for ercr and ever, imen." On the whole subject, see Edwards, Works, 2 : 193-257 ; Janet, 
Final Causes, 443-455; Princeton ThooL Essays, 'i: 15-32; Murphy, Scientific Bases of 
Faith, 358-362. 

It is a duty to make the most of ourselves, but only for God's sake. Jer. 45 : 5— " seekett 

thoa great things for th7self7 seek them not!" But it is nowhere forbidden us to seek great 
things for God. Kathcr weareto"desireeame8tl7thegreatergifte"(10or.i2:31). Self-realization 
as well as self-expression is native to humanity. Kant: "Man, and with him every 
rational creature, is an end in himself." But this seeking of his own good is to bo sub- 
ordinated to the higher motive of God's glory. The difference between the regenerate 
and the unregenerate may consist wholly in motive. The latter lives for self, the for- 
mer for God. Illustrate by the young man in Yale College who began to learn his 
lessons for God instead of for self, lea\iug his salvation in Christ's hands. God requires 
self-rcnunciution, taking up the cross, and following Christ, because the first need of 
the sinner is to change his centre. To be self-centered is to bo a savage. The struggle 
for the life of others is better. But there is something higher still. Life has dignity 
according to the worth of the object we install in place of self. Follow Christ, 
make God the center of your life,— so shall you achieve the best; see Colestock, 
Changing Viewpoint, 113-123. 

26 



402 THE WORKS OF OOIK 

George A. Gordon, The New Epoch for fUth, ll-lS—** The ultimate Tiew of the uni- 
Terae is the reli^rious view. It8 worth Is ultimately worth for the supreme Being. 
Here is the note of permanent ralue in Bdwards^s great essay on The End of Creation. 
The final value of creation is its yalue for God. .... Men are men in and through 
society — here is the truth which Aristotle teaches— but Aristotle fails to see that 
society attains its end only in and through God." Hovey, Studies, 05— **To manifest 
the glory or perfection of God is therefore the chief end of our ezistenoe. To live in 
such a manner that his life is reflected in ours ; that his character shall reappear, at 
least faintly, in ours : that his holiness and lore shall be recognised and declared by us, 
is to do that for which we are nuide. And so, in requiring us to irlorify himself, Qod 
simply requires us to do what is absolutely right, and what is at the same time indi»- 
peusablc to our highest welfare. Any lower aim could not have been placed before 
us, without making us content with a character unlike that of the First Good and 
the First Fair.'* See statement and criticism of Edwards's view in AUen, Jonathan 
Edwards, 227-288. 

YL Beiiation of thb Docibinb of Cbsation to othsb Dootrihbb. 

1. To the holine88 and benevolence of OocL 

Creation, as the work of God, manifests of necessity Gfod's moral attri- 
butes. But the existence of physical and moral evil in tiie universe appears, 
at first sight, to impugn these attributes, and to contradict the Scripture 
declaration that the work of God's hand was "very good'* (Gen. 1 :31). 
This difficulty may be in great part removed by considering that : 

( a ) At its first creation, the world was good in two senses : first, as free 
from moral evil, — sin being a later addition, the work, not of God, but of 
created spirits ; secondly, as adapted to beneficent ends, — for example, 
the revelation of God's perfection, and the probation and happiness of 
intelligent and obedient creatures. 

( 6 ) Physical pain and imperfection, so far as they existed before the 
introduction of moral evil, are to be regarded : first, as congruous parts of 
a system of which sin was foreseen to be an incident ; and secondly, as 
constituting, in part, the means of future discipline and redemption for the 
fallen. 

The coprolites of Saurians contain the scales and bones of fish which they have 
devoured. Bom. 8 : 20-22 — " For the en&tion vu labjoeUd to Tanitj, not of its own vill, bat bj rotaon of him 
▼ho labjeetod it, in hopo thAt the croation itself &1&« ih&ll be daliTored from the bondage of oorraption into the libertj of 
the glor J of the children of God. For ve knov that the whole creation [ the irrational creation ] groaneth and 
traraileth in pain together nntil now " ; 23 — our mortal body, as a part of nature, participates in 
the same groaoing>. 2 Cor. 4 : 17 — " oar light affliction, which is for the moment, worketh for as more and more 
exceedingly an eternal weight of glory." Bowne, Philosophy of Theism, 2:24-240 — '' How eicplain 
our rather shabby universe? Pessimism assumes that perfect wisdom is compatible 
only with a perfect work, and that we know the universe to be truly worthless and 
insigrniflcant.'* John Stuart Mill, Essays on KeIi«rion, 29, brings in a fearful indictment 
of nature, her storms, lightnings, earthquakes, blight, decay, and death. Christianity 
however regards these as due to man, not to God ; as incidents of sin : as the groans of 
creation, crying out for relief and liberty. Man's body, as a part of nature, waits for 
the adoption, and resurrection of the body is to accompany the renewal of the world. 

It was Darwin's judgment that in the world of nature and of man, on the whole, 
** happiness decidedly prevails." Wallace, Darwinism, 36-40— "Animals enjoy all the 
happiness of which they are capable.'* Drummond, Ascent of Man, 203 8(/. — **Inthe 
struggle for life there in no hate — only hunger." Martincau, Study, 1 : 330— "Waste 
of life is simply nature's eicuberance.*' Newman Smyth, Place of Death in Evolution, 
44-.')6 — " Death simply buries the useless waste. Death has entered for life's sake.*' 
These utterances, however, come far short of a proper ostimAte of the evils of the 
world, and they ignore the Scriptural teaching with regard to the connection between 



RELATIOXS OF THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION. 403 

death and sin. A future world into which sin and death do not enter shows that the 
present world is abnormal, and that morality \a the only cure for mortality. Nor can 
the imperfections of the Universe be explained by B&ylng that they furnish opportunity 
for struflT^le and for virtue. Robert BrownlncTt Ring* and Book, Pope, 1375— "lean 
believe this dread machinery Of sin and sorrow, would confound me else. Devised, — 
All pain, at most expenditure Of pain by Who devised pain,— to evolve. By new machin- 
ery in counterpart. The moral qualities of man — how else? — To m^ke him love in 
turn and be beloved. Creative and self-sacrificing too, And thus eventually grodlike.*' 
This seems like doing evil that good may come. We can explain mortality only by 
immorality, and that not in God but in man. Fairbaim : ** Suffering is God's protest 
against sin.** 

Wallace's theory of the survival of the fittest was suggested by the prodigal destruo- 
tiveness of nature. Tennyson : " Finding that of fifty seeds She often brings but one 
to bear." William James : '* Our dogs are in our human life, but not of it. The dog, 
under the knife of vivisection, cannot understand the purpose of his suffering. For 
him it is only pain. So we may lie soaking in a spiritual atmosphere, a dimension of 
Being which we have at present no organ for apprehending. If we knew the purpose 
of our life, all that is heroic in us would religiously acquiesce.** Mason, Faith of the 
Gospel, 73— *' Love is prepared to take deeper and sterner measures than benevolence, 
which is by itself a shallow thing.'* The Lakes of KiUamy in Ireland show what a 
paradise this world might be if war had not desolated it, and if man had properly cared 
for it. Our moral sense cannot Justify the evil in creation except upon the hypothesis 
that this has some cause and reason in the misconduct of man. 

This is not a perfect world. It was not perfect even when originally constituted. 
Its imperfection is due to sin. God made it with reference to the Fail,— the stage was 
arranged for the great drama of sin and redemption which was to be enacted thereon. 
We accept Bushneirs idea of ^^anticipative consequences," and would illustrate it by 
the building of a hospital-room while yet no member of the family is sick, and by the 
salvation of the patriarchs through a Christ yet to come. If the earliest vertebrates of 
geological history were types of man and preparations for his coming, then pain and 
death amon^r those same vertebrates may equally have been a type of man's sin and its 
restilts of misery. If sin had not been an incident, foreseen and provided for, the world 
might have been a paradise. As a matter of fact, it will become a paradise only at the 
completion of the redemptive work of Christ. Kreibig, VersUhnimg, 869— " The death 
of Christ was accompanied by startling occurrences in the outward world, to show that 
the effects of his sacrifice reached even into nature.*' Perowne rcf ers Pi. 96 : 10 — "Th* 
world also ii asUblishad that it oannot be moved " — to the restoration of the inanimate creation ; c/. 
leb. 12 : 27 — "And this vord, Tet once more, lignifleth the remoTing of those things that are shaken, as of things that 
hare been made, that those things vhich are not shaken may remain " ; Rot. 21 : i, 5 — "a nev hearen and a new earth 

. . . Behold, I make all things nev." 

Much sport has been made of this doctrine of anticipative consequences. James D. 
Dana : *' It is funny that the sin of Adam should have killed those old trilobites I The 
blunderbuss must have kicked back into time at a tremendous rate to have hit those 
poor innocents ! " Yet every insurance policy, every taking out of an umbrella, every 
buying of a wedding ring, is an anticipative consequence. To deny that God made the 
world what it is in view of the events that were to take place in it, is to concede to him 
less wisdom than we attribute to our fellow-man. The most rational explanation of 
physical evil in the universe is that of Rom. 8 : 20, 21 — "the creation vas sabjected to Tanitj .... by 
reason of him vho subjected it" — i. e., by reason of the first man's sin— "in hope that the oreatioB 
itMlf also shall be dellTered." 

Martineau, Types, 2 : 151 — •* What meaning' could Pity have in a world where suffer- 
ing was not moant to be?" Hicks, Critique of Design Arguments, 886— "The very 
badness of the world convinces us that God is good." And Sir Henry Taylor's words : 
'* Pain in man Bears the high mission of the flail and fan ; In brutes 't is surely piteous " 
—receive their answer: The brute is but an appendage to man, and like inanimate 
nature it suffers from man's fall— suffers not wholly in vain, for even pain in brutes 
serves to illustrate the malign influence of sin and to suggest motives for resisting it. 
Pascal : ** Whatever virtue can be bought with pain is cheaply bought." The pain and 
imperfection of the world are God's frown upon sin and his warning a^inst it. See 
BushnelL, chapter on Anticipative Consequences, in Nature and the Supernatural, 
lW-219. Also McCosh, Divine Government, 28-35, 249-281 ; Farrar, Science and Theology, 
«8-105; Johnson, in Bap. Rev., 6 : 141-154 ; Fairbaim, Phllos. Christ. ReUgion, 94-188. 



404 THE WORKS OF GOD. 

2. To the wisdom and free-will of God. 

No plan wbatever of a finite creation can folly express the infinite per- 
fection of God. Since God, however, is inunutable, he mnst always have 
had a plan of the universe ; since he is perfect, he must have had the best 
possible plan. As wise, God cannot choose a plan less good, instead of one 
more good. As rational, he cannot between plans equally good make a 
merely arbitrary choice. Here is no necessity, but only the certainty that 
infinite wisdom will act wisely. As no compulsion from without, so no 
necessity from within, moves Gk)d to create the actual universe. Creation 
is both wise and free. 

Ab God is both rational and wise, his having a plan of the univene must be better than 
his not huvinflr a plan would be. But the universe once was not ; yet without a uni- 
verse God was blessed and sulRcicnt to himself. God's perfection therefore requires, 
not that be have a universe, but that ho have a plan of the universe. Again, since God 
is both rational and wise, his actual creation cannot be the worst possible, nor one 
arbitrarily chosen from two or mure equally good. It must be, all things considered, 
the best possible. We are optimists rather than pessimists. 

But we reject that form of optimism which regards e\il as the indispensable condition 
of the good, and sin as the direct product of God's wilL We hold that other form of 
optimism which regards sin as naturally destructive, but as made, in spite of itself, by 
an overruling providence, to contribute to the highest good. For the optimism which 
makes evil the necessary condition of finite being, see Leibnitz, Opera Philosophica, 
468, CSJ4 ; Hedge, Waj'sof the Spirit, 241 ; and Pope's Essay on Man. For the better form 
of optimism, see Hcrzog. Encyclopttdic, art. : SchUpfung, 13 : 651-663 ; Chalmers, Works, 
2:286; Mark Hopkins, in Andover Uev., March, 1885:197-210; Luthardt, Lehre des 
freien Willcns, 9, 10—" Calvin's iiaia ixWuit is not the last answer. We could have no 
heart for such a God, for ho would himself have no heart. Formal will alone has no 
heart. In G o<l real freedom controls formal, as in fallen man, formal controls reaL** 

Janet, in his Final Causes, 429 Bq. and 490-603, claims that optimism subjects God to 
fate. We have shown that this objection mistakes the certainty which is consistent 
with frtHMlom for the neeesHity which is inconsistent with freedom. The opposite doc- 
trine attributes an irrutioiiai arbitrarinc«s to God. We are warranted in saying that 
the universe at present existing, considered as a partial realization of God's develop- 
ing plan, is the iHJSt i)OH8ible for this iwrticular point of time,— in short, that all is for 
thebest,— 8CeRom.8:28— "tothemtlutloT»QodaUthingivorkiog«thar&rgood"; i Oor.3:2i— "aUtkiogi 
an yoon." 

For denial of optimism in any form, see Watson, Theol. Institutes, 1 : 419 ; Hovey, God 
with Us, 206-208 ; Hcnlge, Syst. Theol., 1 : 419, 432, 566. and 2 : 145 ; Lipsius, Dogmatik, 234- 
255; Flint, llieiMm, 227-256 ; HiUrd, Klohim Ilevoaled, 397-40i», and esp. 406— "A wisdom 
the resources of whii-h have Injon so exp<»nde<l that it cannot equal its past achieve- 
ments is a finite capacity, uikI not the bouiidle«s depth of the infinite God." But we 
reply that a wi»lom which does not do that which is best is not wisdom. The limit is 
not in God's abstract ))ower. but in his other attributes of truth, love, and holiness. 
Hence God can say in Ii. 5 : 4 — " what coald hare been dona mora to my rinayard, t^ I hara not dona in it ? " 

The iwrfect antithesis to an ethical and theistio optimism is found in the non-moral 
and atheistic iK<«ii!ii«m of SchoiKJuhauer (Die Welt als Wille uiid Vorstellung) and 
Hartmann ( PliiloHoiihie dc»8 Unl»ewus8ten ). "All life is summed up in effort, and effort 
la painful ; then-fore life is imin." But we might retort : ** Life is active, and action is 
always ac<ronipani<*<l with pleasuni; therefore life is pleasure." St»e Frances Power 
Coblx), Peak in Darien, 95-l.')4, for a graphic account of Schopenhauer's hcartlessness, 
cowanli(*e and arrogance. I^eNsimism is natural to a mind soured by disappointment 
and forget f ul <>' ^^**** • **<'^- 2 : 11 — "all was Tanity and a atrifing aftar wini" Homer : " There is 
ntithlng whatever more wretcluHl tlian man.'* Seneca praises dc^ath as the best inven- 
tion of nntun'. Hyo" ' " Count o'er the Joj's thine hours have seen. Count o'er thy days 
ttMXw angulsli fn**'. And kn«)w, whatever thou hast been, 'T is sometliing better not to 
Uv" Hut it Im** ''*'*"* *•*'* *^* Sc!hoiH»nhauer and Hartmann to define will as unsatisfied 
yt^nilngi 1«» n*g«^**** *''" it«<^lf oh a huge blunder, and to urge u|Mm the human race, as 
ilH» \W\\y meiiHur^ ofpwmanont relief, a united and universal act of suicide. 




BBLATIONS OF THE DOCTRIKE OF OBEATION. 405 

G. H. Beard, In Andover Rev., March, 1802— "Schopenhauer utters one New Testament 
truth: the utter delusiveness of self-indulgence. Life which is dominated by the 
desires, and devoted to mere getting^ Is a pendulum swingin^r between pain and ennui." 
Bowne, Phllos. of Theism, 124 — " For Schopenhauer the world-ground is pure will, 
without intellect or personality. But pure will is nothing. Will itself, except as a 
function of a conscious and intelligent spirit, is nothing.** Boyoe, Spirit of Mod. 
Philos., 253-260 -" Scliopenhauer united Kant's thought, * The inmost life of all things is 
one,' with the Hindoo insight, ' The life of all these things. That art Thou.* To him music 
shows best what the will is : passionate, struggling, wandering, restless, ever returning 
to itself, full of longing, vigor, majesty, caprice. Schopenhauer condemns individual 
suicide, and counsels resignation. That I must ever desire yet never fully attain, leads 
Hegel to the conception of the absolutely active and triumphant spirit. Schopenhauer 
finds in it proof of the totally evil nature of things. Thus while Hegel is an optimist, 
Schopenhauer is a pessimist.** 

Winwood Kcade, in the title of his book. The Martyrdom of Man, intends to describe 
human history. O. W. Holmes says that Bunyan's Pilgrim*s Progress ** represents the 
universe as a trap which catches most of the human vermin that have its bait dangled 
before them.*' Strauss : ** If the prophets of pessimism prove that man had better 
never have lived, they thereby prove that themselves had better never have prophesied.** 
Hawthorne, Note-book : " Curious to Imagine what mournings and discontent would 
be excited, if any of the great so-called calamities of human beings were to be abol- 
ished,— as, for instance, death.'* 

On both the optimism of Leibnitz and the pessimism of Schopenhauer, see Bowcn, 
Modem Philosophy ; Tulloch, Modern Theories, 16&-:S2l ; Thompson, on Modem Pessim- 
ism, in Present Day Tracts, 6 : no. 34 ; Wright, on Ecclesiastcs, Ul-21« ; Barlow, Ulti- 
matum of Pessimism : Culture tends to misery ; (xod is the most mis(;ral)le of beings ; 
creation is a plaster for the sore. See also Mark Hopkins, in Princet^m Review, Sept. 
1882 : 197—" Disorder and misery are so mingled with order and beneficence, that both 
optimism and pessimism are possible.** Yet it is evident that tliere must be more con- 
struction than destruction, or the world would not bo existing. Buddhism, with its 
. Nirvana-refuge, is essentially pessimistic. 

3. To Christ aa the Bcvealer of God. 

Since Clirist is the Eevealer of God in creation as well as in redemption, 
the remedy for pessimism is ( 1 ) the recognition of God's transcendence — 
the universe at present not fully expressing his power, his holiness or his 
love, and nature being a scheme of progressive evolution which we imper- 
fectly comprehend and in which there is much to follow ; ( 2 ) the recog- 
nition of sin as the free act of the creature, by which all sorrow and pain 
have been caused, so that God is in no proper sense its author ; ( 3 ) the 
recognition of Christ /or us on the Cross and Christ in us by his Spirit, as 
revealing the age-long sorrow and sufiering of God's heart on account of 
human transgression, and as manifested, in self-sacrificing love, to deliver 
men from the manifold evils in which their sins have involved them ; and 
( 4 ) the recognition of present probation and future judgment, so that pro- 
vision is made for removing the scandal now resting upon the divine 
government and for justifying the ways of God to men. 

Christ *s Cross is the proof that God sufTers more than man from human sin, and Christ*s 
judgment will show that the wicked cannot always prosper. In Christ alone we find 
the key to the dark problems of history and the gimrantee of human progress. Rom. 3 
25 — " vhom God set forth to b« a propituitioQ, throagli faith, in his blood, to shov his rightaoosnoa booaase of the past- 
ing OTor of the sins done aforetime in the forbearance of God " ; 8 : 32 —"Ha that spared not his ovn Son, but deliTered 
him up for ns all, how shall he not also vith him fireelj give as all things ? " Heb. 2 : 8, 9 — " ve see not yet all 
tilings subjected to him. But we behold .... Jesus .... crowned with glorj and honor " ; lets 17 : 31 — " he hath 
appointed a daj in which he will judge the earth in righteousness bj the man whom he hath ordained." See Hill, 
Psychology, 283; Bradford, Heredity and Christian Problems, 240, 241; Bruce, Provi- 
dential Order, 71-88 : J. M. Whiton, in Am. Jour. Theology, April, 1901 : 318. 

O. A. Gordon, New Epoch of Faith, 199— " The book of Job is called by Huxley the 
classic of pessimism.** Dean Swift, on the successive anniversaries of his own birth, 



406 THE WORKS OF GOOu 



•oc p ttonifta to read the thlid chftpter of Jol>, whtcfa hegbm with the terrible 

"Lst tkf CMj pent vMpna I vm tors" '%:tK But predestinatiofi and electioa are not artii- 
trmnr. WiMk^m bai cfaovm the b(^«t pcioible plan, has ordained the Mdvation of all 
who oouid wiiHrlr har« Yji««n lavf^ ban permitted the least evil that it was wise to 
permit. lUT.4:»-*!WiU«(mtta2t«ii^>aitoenM«rtfc7viaft7«v«.aa4vr«anitai.'' Mamu 
Faith of the fi^mp^^ TV— '^ Ail tbingn w«!Te present to God's mind becaiwe of Us wHl, 
and tben, wbtm ft pl«Mir«l him, iau! beinir given to them." Pfleiderer. GmmlriSB, SB, 
advocates a nmiittU: iOf^mlimn, Cbrintianity, he says, is not abstract optimism, for it 
reoogniifles the'rril of tlie arrtnal and rvirards conflict with it as tlie task of the world** 
hist/jry ; ft is n^/t rMssifflimLi f<vr it regards the evil as not imconqiierable» but regards 
the tf^Mftl as the end Mn4 tbt; powvr €ft the world. 

Jonw. lUAturt Bpr/wnimr, KA, ill — "^ Pantheistic optimism asserts that all tUngs art 
good : CbriMtian 'optimism asfl«Tts tliat all things arc Hxirking togtiMer for good. Reverie 
in Aftf>ljin(lo : ' Fr^irn tb«; firvt Powfrr was — I knew. Life has made dear to me That, 
stri%'e but for tAtimar view, l>iv<.' wrre aw plain to see.* Balaustion*B Adventure : * Glad- 
nesi Uf witb tlM9i;, WslptfT of ttjc- world ! 1 think this is the authentic sign and seal Of 
Godship, that it ev«fr wux'm glad. And more glad, until gladness blossoms, bursts Into a 
rsge to HutttiT Vfr mankind And rc'C-^immfrnoe at sorrow.* Browning endeavored to 
find Hi A i;j man, and sf 111 to leave man free. His optimiflitic faith sought reconcilia- 
tion with rnonilfty. He abborrr^ the doctrine that the evils of the world are doe to 
merrily arUtniry sr/verelgrjty, and this doctrine he has satirized In the monologue of 
Caiil4in on y-iiU'\iini : * fyn-fng not, hating not, just choosing so.' Pippa Passes: *• God *s 
f n bis l*<iiv(n— All > right with thr; workl.* But how is this consistent with the guilt of 
Uui sinn'T ? Browning d^icfl not my. He leaves the antinomy unsolved, only striving 
U* luiid M/th trut lis in tbcir f uhH.fA. Love di'mands distinction between God and man, 
yet lo\'<; uiiiUm Htjtl and man. Haul : 'All 'b love, but all 's law.* Carlyle forms a strik- 
ing (xnitniKt to lirr^wning. (.'tarlylc was a f^.'ssimist. He would renounce happiness for 
duty, and as a iiK^aiis U* this end would suppress, not idle speech alone, but thought 
ftw'If. Tho t>attle is fought mon^jver in a foreign cause. God's cause is not ours. 
Duty is a menace;, llk<i tiie duty of a sla\'e. The moral law is not a bem^flcent revela- 
tion, Tiif^moAWniK (><A and nmn. All is fear, and there is no love.*' Garlyle took Emer- 
son thrfiugh tb4; fy^ndon Hlurns at midnight and asked him : '* Do you believe in a devil 
now 't ** But Kmermm replied : ** I am more and more convinced of the greatness and 
gocylrn^w of tlie KngllKh iierjple.** On Browning and Carlyle, see A. H. Strong, Great 
i'c^rtj* and t Iwir ITw-oIogy, a::M47. 

lU'iiry Wuni BtfclKT, whcnaskf^ whether life was worth living, replied that that 
<1<t|K'nd(fl vi'.ry mucli ufM^n tlie liver. Optimism and pessimism are largely matters of 
dlg'iit Ion. PnfHidf'ut Mark Hopkins askcil a bright student if he did not believe this the 
iKwt pfiMHlblft HyHtffin. When the student n'i)lied in the negative, the President asked him 
liow lie (^>uld improve ui>on it. He answered : ** I would kill off all the bed-bugs, moe- 
f|iilt'H'«i and fhiaM, and make orangcM and liananat* grow further north.** The lady who 
WMM bit t<'n by a nuw^iuito asked whetbiT it would lie profter to speak of the creature as 
•• fi d<'prM v«?'l littli* Inw^ct.*' She was told that this would bc.» improper, because depravity 
Ml wiiyx lmi>lifii a previous state of innocence, when^s the mcjsiiuito has always been as 
lm/1 iM h'? now is. Dr. Lyman Ik-echer, however, seems to have held the contrary view. 
WIk'M he hud captured th» mowiuito who hafl bitten him, he crushed the insect, sajring : 
** Tlifnt ! I Ml hIiow you that there is a Go<l in Israi.*! I '* He identified the mosquito with 
ull Mw« «'orp<init4} evil of the world. Allen, Beligious Progress, 22— "Wordsworth 
iMipi'd m( 111. although the French lU'Volutlon d<'pniwed him; Macaulay, after reading 
If iirih<'M f f iHf ory of the PofX's, denied all religious progress.^' On Huxley's account of 
nvll, «^* Ti'ton, HihtMTt Iii.>ctures. aiSa^. 

i*l|fid<'n r, IMilhm. lU.'ligion, 1 : 301, 302—" The Greeks of Homcr*8 time had a naive and 
^oiillifiil opUiiilMm. But they changed from an optimistic to a pessimistic view. This 
I'hHiigo riMiiiKi'd ffom their increasing contemplation of the moral disorder of the 
ttMild. " On llii'niHancholy of the Oreeks,8eeButcher, Aspects of Greek Genius, 130- 
Hto, liuii'lMT IioMh that the great difference between Greeks and Hebrews was that 
\hi ri.» »ii«'» liii'l no hojKJ or ideal of progr«»S8. A. H. Bradford, Age of Faith, 74-lOS — 
** 'I'liii v'lliii'dioiiN pfM'tsare iK^tsimistic, because sensual pleasure quiokly passes, and 
li.Mvia jiiiii-Miiilo and enervation behind. Pessimism is the basis of Stoicism also. It 
\u\w ^ Mi*M«» wlii'n<th«Teisno faith in God and in a future life. The lifeof aseedunder- 
^iiiiotd i« M»ii liiMplrlng, exce)>tiu pro8i>ect r)f sun and flowers and fruit.'* Bradley, 
Ai'|'i-Mniii««< iiiid iCi'ullly, xlv, sums up the optimistic view as follows: *'The worldis 
iliii iMiSl. Mf all iKJSSlble worlds, and everything in it is a necessary evlL" He should 



RELATIOJfS OF THE DOCTBINB OP ORE ACTION. 407 

have added that pain Is the exception in the world, and finite free will is the cause of 
the trouble. Pain is made the means of deTeloping* character, and, when it has accom- 
plished its purpose, pain will pass away. 

Jackson, James Martdneau, 390— ** All is well, says an American preacher, for if there 
is anything: that is not well, it is well that it is not well. It is well that falsity and hate 
are not well, that malice and envy and cruelty are not welL What hope for the world 
or what trust in God, if they were well? ** Live spells EvO^ only when we read it tbe 
wronflT way. James RusbcII Lowell, Letters, 2:61— ^* The more I learn .... the more 
my confidence in the ^rcnoral good sense and honest intentions of mankind increases. 
.... The siirns of the times cease to alarm me, and seem as natural as to a mother the 
teething of her seventh baby. I take great comfort in God. I think that he is oon- 
sidorably amused with us sometimes, and that he likes us on the whole, and would not 
let us got at the matchbox so oardeBsly as he does, unless he knew that the frame of 
his uni\'er8e was fireproof.** 

Ck>mpare with all this the hopeless peasimism of Omar Khayyam, Rubdiy&t, stanza 90 — 
*' Ah Love I could you and I with Him conspire To grasp this sorry scheme of things 
entire, Would not we shatter it to bits— and then Remould it nearer to the heart's 
desire ? '* Royce, Studios of Good and Evil, 14, in discussing the Problem of Job, sug- 
gests the following solution : *^ When you suifer, your suiferings are God's sufferings, 
not his external work, not his external penalty, not the fruit of his neglect, but 
identically his own personal wo& In you God himself suffers, precisely as you do, and 
has all your concern in overcoming this grief. ** F. H. Johnson, What is Reality, 849, 
S05— "The Christian ideal is not maintainable, if we assume that God could as easily 

develop his creation without conflict Happiness is only one of his ends ; the 

evolution of moral character is another.** A. E. Waffle, Uses of Moral Evil: '•(!) It 
aids development of holy character by opposition ; ( 3) affords opportunity for minister- 
ing; (3) makes known to us some of the chief attributes of Qod; (4) enhances the 
blessedness of heaven. *' 

4. lb Providence and Redemption. 

Christianity is essentiallj a scheme of snpemataral love and power. It 
concoives of God as above the world, as well as in it, — able to manifest 
himself, and actually manifesting himself, in ways unknown to mere nature. 

But this absolute sovereignty and transcendence, which are manifested 
in providence and redemption, are inseparable from croatorship. If the 
world be eternal, like God, it must be an efflux from the substance of God 
and must be absolutely equal with God. Only a proper doctrine of creation 
can secure God's absolute distinctness from the world and his sovereignty 
over it. 

The logical alternative of creation is therefore a system of pantheism, in 
which God is an impersonal and necessary force. Hence the pantheistic 
dicta of Fichto : '* The assumption of a creation is the fundamental error 
of all false metaphysics and false theology " ; of Hegel : " God evolves the 
world out of himself, in order to take it back into himself again in the 
Spirit" ; and of Strauss : ** Trinity and creation, speculatively viewed, are 
one and the same, — only the one is viewed absolutely, the other 
empirically.' 



»> 



Stcrrett, Studies, 155, 156— "Hegel held that it belongs to God's nature to create. 
Creation is God's positing an other which is not an ot/ier. The creation is his, belongs to 
his being or essence. This involves the finite as his own self-posited object and self- 
revelation. It is necessary for God to create. Love, Hegel says, is only another ex- 
pression of the eternally Triune God. Love must create and love another. But in loving 
this other, God is only loving himself. *' Wo have already, in our discussion of the theory 
of creation from eternity, shown the insufficiency of creation to satisfy either the love 
or the power of God. A proper doctrine of the Trinity renders the hypothesis of an 
eternal creation unnecessary and irrational. That hypothesis is pantheistic in tendency 



408 THB WORKS OF GOD. 

Luthardt, Compendium der Do^matik, W - " Dualism might be oaUed a logloal alterna- 
Uw of oroaUon. but for the fact that its notion of two gods in self-contradictory and 
leads to the lowering of the idea of the Godhead, so that the impersonal god of 
pantheism taktv its place. " Domer, System of Doctrine, 2;11 - "The world cannot be 

mH'OWltaUxl in order to satisfy either want or over-fulnees in God The doctrine 

of absolute cnmtion prevents the ctmfoundtng of God with the world. The declaration 
that the Spirit bnKMled over t be formless elements, and that life was developed under the 
iHintiuuous operation of God's laws and presence, prevents the separation of God from 
the wiurkl. Thus pantheism and deism are both avoided." See Kant and Spinoza con- 
trasted in ShiHld, Dogm. Thwl., 1:468, 469. The unusuaUy full treatment of the 
iktetrine of enwtion in this chapter isdue to a conviction that the doctrine constitutes 
an antidote to most of the false philosophy of our time. 

ft. 7b the 0(Hten*ance of the Sabbcith. 

Wo iH>rtH>iTt> fnun tliia pi^intof view, moreover, the importance and valne 
vt Uio HAMmthi M CH^mmemorating €k>d*s act of creation, and thus Gbd's 
|i|trmMmlitVt M>vonngnty, and irauaoendenee. 

( (• ) Tho KablmUi is of jwrpotiial obligation as God's appointed memorial 
\>i Ilia on^atiiiK lU'Uvity. The Sabltatli rtninisition antedates the decalogue 
mul (\xriuMa |mrtof tho moral law. Made at the creation, it applies to man 
Ma mtui» t»vor;k'whor() luul al^-a^'M, in his present state of being. 

«M. 9 : » ** 4taM bWiii a* wTMtkdAT. ud Ullovvd it; bMUse tkat inithe nttod from all hit vork vkieh 
^kmk Ul M^hhl Mi4 mU*. " thir nwt Is to U> a miniature representation of God's rest. As 
\UhI woiK^hI hU divine da^KHud nvttHi one divine day, so are we in imitation of him 
tv w^^^ «i \ hutuan dajta and to nvt one human day. In the Old Testament there are 
lll^ll^^lUMV««»r ail \»lwei'VHiUH« ot the Saltlmth day lH*fon* the Mosaic legislation : Gen. 4 : 3 

"4m4 («!««««« Hi lUM* I lit. '«lU»MMl»f di^Ti] it MkflM to past that Ckin Itroogkt of the fndt of the ground aa 
«iaii« MHWM^^a '\ Um. » |<\ (9 - Nuih t wiet* waltiM smen da^-s before sending forth the 
\li»\V ¥«vm IIh' ai-K; Umi. W I7.M " fUlU the v««k " ; c/. JB(ig«i4: lS—*'theaeTenda7iofthef«ait"; 
t^ M > sts^iiMe |HU ll\ui of uiauiia prtMuKnt on the sixth day, that none be gathered 
VM vh\'}«Hl'l»alU \ «'« ^«*«*" W» W ^ 'Hils dlvUion of ila^'s into weeks is best explained by 
|4H%\mMli^al livvtltiitioiiof t\w Sal>lmthat man's en^ation. Moses in the fourth com- 
UMMi^kius'M^ tlu'ivliuv M|«eaKN of it as aln^dy known and observed: Iz.80:8 — 

'4W MH('(«aiU t« l%HH^NlllMHl III .\Nii>'rtan aiHHmntii of the Creation ; see Trans. Soc. Bib. 
\wh . A . kv'i, 4\*a 1 ^«Uiadoi. KellUim^hrinen, t^i, !»!« : 18-21 Professor Sayce : " Seven 
^iMia w*^Ht mmiU'i d««»«*»iut*Hl to t lH»S*»iultt» frtiin thi»ir Aocadian predecessors. Seven 
Vjk w\\*»» 1"**^ S^^^ wma«o Wiiotw to U^ tUxl l»y the wit eh ; sevi»n timi^s had the body of the 
«M^ fckw*^* *^* *•** auou»t»^l b> the pitrirylng i»IK As the Sabl»athof rest fell on each 
MkV^kk vIk\ ^^i *^*^* ^ **»'*^' ■** * **** l»lrtnetj«, llWe th»» deinon-messvngers of Anu, were seven 
Uik uuiuK'i^ a»sl Mu' **»»»' «»f **»♦* nuiutH^r la^vvn nwivini a |»artioular honor." But now 
U^^ a*mv\v»*\ s»l •* »"^lei»*Ui tiiMet In M*>i«o|H»taiuia shows us the week of seven days 
aftkU v»H^:^H*AVH l^» iMll •« a> hi rtii\»leiit ltat»> U»n long lH»fon» the da^-s of Moses. In this 
tekM VlH'«k»\%»*iV>*. ^*»^' t\'nil*H»iitU. thetweiity-nrnt aadtln^wenty-elghth days are called 
!?u^ ^>^ ^l^^ XVI \ «v'id \\'*^^\h\ M^xm^ttiid following it an* the words :*A day of 
JJaTv^' u«a^^»^ t^'»»» H»*» M»i»»* iwiluld In this tabk^t as tluvjt* In the law of Moses. 
tthk UiaWiiaW^M \iiiuv U»»ve aoiie UioK to the Ats^dlan pt^riinl. U-fore the days of 
uTahaui |u v^m' I'l »«**» ^^'^'^^^^ aii.*H»\ei u^ lliUi tUi^v Is i-alltHl * tht> day of rest for the 
^Twufc va ^U^» a^^K 1^** Hxs'*^iii»t ol the pi^»p»l»i«lo" *»ff*wl on that day, their heart 

ZL MUMit i\*V »^ e .U-li*^w. Ill Vii» «»»'»«. i'^**^** - -^l***"- >^^*^ ^ ^^„ 

^nWu^ Uu taW^rti* !»> \^^ .lru«>northeliilxei>ityof StrassburgontheBlbll- 
^WiaairkvMmw \N\vK . \^'s»^M» III Hal»> Ionia nit^ui'* ilay of pnn>itiation, implying 
!w!!lMM^VW4^va^ ^ «^H*»^ oV i»v I II da>« M liii|4UHl In the llabylonian Rood-Story. 
S^Tvulito^MUia *l^ Ms'^ mil* *"*^*'«»ti *'» <»»*^ '«»»xenth. ami another ^>eriixl of seven 
SiIil*uILiWVvi^viiOies.^ll^Mi or thentonu and the di*unbarklngof Noah. 

SiK^X^^ Ki^U. i^H.a ot the .H.iiHetloii of lalvr." Hutton. Essays. 

J>g1l^^ul uiaMkaM a'> mlMd n -rvliia or etemal «.^t as m^l as of ereatK^ 




BELATIOKS OF THE DOOTRIinS OF OREATIOK. 409 

may question, indeed, whether this dootrine of God*8 rest does not of itself refute the 
theory of eternal, continuous, and neoessaiy creation. 

( 6 ) Neither our Lord nor his apostles abrogated the Sabbath of the deca- 
logue. The new dispensation does away with the Mosaic prescriptions as 
to the method of keeping the Sabbath, but at the same time declares its 
observance to be of divine origin and to be a necessity of human nature. 

Not everything- in the Mosaic law is abro^ted in Christ. Worship and reverence, 
regard for life and purity and property, are binding still. Christ did not nail to his 
cross every commandment of the decalogue. Jesus does not defend himself from the 
charge of Sabbath- breaking by sayings that the Sabbath is abrogated, but by asserting 
the true idea of the Sabbath as fulfilling a fundamental human need. Mark 2:27— "The 
Sabbath vas made [ by God ] for man, and not man for the Sabbath." The Puritan restrictions are not 
essential to the Sabbath, nor do they correspond even with the methods of later Old 
Testament observance. The Jewish Sabbath was more like the New England Thanks- 
giving than like the New England Fast-day. lahamiah 8:12, 18— "ind all the people vent their 
vaj to eat, and to drink, and to aend portions, and to make great mirtL . . . ind they kept the feast seren dayi; and 
on the eighth daj vas a eolamn aMombly, aeoording nnto the ordinanee**— seems to Include the Sabbath 
day as a day of gladness. 

Origcn, in Homily 28 on InmberB ( Migne, II : 868 ) : **Leavin£r therefore the Jewish 
observances of the Sabbath, let us see what ought to be for a Christian the observance 
of the Sabbath. On the Sabbath day nothing of all the actions of the world ought to 
be done.'* Christ walks through the cornfield, heals a paralytic, and dines with a Phari- 
see, all on the Sabbath day. John Milton, in his Christian Doctrine, is an extreme anti- 
sabbatarian, maintaining that the decalogue was abolished with the Mosaic law. He 
thinks it uncertain whether ** the Lord's day " was weekly or annual. The observance 
of the Sabbath, to his mind, is a matter not of authority, but of convenience. Arch- 
bishop Paley : ** In my opinion St. Paul considered the Sabbath a sort of Jewish ritual, 
and not obligatory on Christians. A cessation on that day from labor beyond the time 
of attending public worship is not intimated in any part of the New Testament. The 
notion that Jesus and his apostles meant to retain the Jewish Sabbath, only shifting 
the day from the seventh to the first, prevails without sufficient reason.** 

According to Gulzot, Calvin was so pleased with a play to be acted in Geneva on 
Sunday, that he not only attended but deferred his sermon so that his congregation 
might attend. When John Knox visited Calvin, he found him playing a game of 
bowls on Sunday. Martin Luther said : *' Keep the day holy for its use's sake, both to 
body and soul. But if anywhere the day is made holy for the mere day^s sake, if any 
one set up its observance on a Jewish foundation, then I order you to work on it, to 
ride on it, to dance on it, to do anything that shall reprove this encroachment on the 
Christian spirit and liberty." But the most liberal and even radical writers of our time 
recognize the economic and patriotic uses of the Sabbath. R. W. Emerson said that 
its observance is '^ the core of our civilization." Charles Sumner : ** If we would per- 
petuate oiur Republic, we must sanctify it as well as fortify it, and make it at once a 
temple and a citadel." Oliver Wendell Holmes: ^'He who ordained the Sabbath 
loved the poor." In Pennsylvania they bring up from the mines every Sunday the 
mules that have been workinsr the whole week In darkness,— otherwise they would 
become blind. So men's spiritual sight will fail them if they do not weekly come up 
into God's light. 

( c ) The Sabbath law binds ns to set apart a seventh portion of our time 
for rest and worship. It does not enjoin the sfmultaneons observance by 
all the world of a fixed portion of absolute time, nor is such observance 
possible. Christ's example and apostolic sanction have transferred the 
Sabbath from the seventh daj to the first, for the reason that this last is 
the day of Christ's resurrection, and so the day when God's spiritual cre- 
ation became in Christ complete. 

No exact portion of absolute time can be simultaneously observed by men in differ- 
ent longitudes. The day in Berlin begins six hours before the day in New York, so that 
a whole quarter of what is Sunday in Berlin is still Satiuxlay in New York. Crossing 
the 180th degree of lonfiritude from West to East we gain fi day, and a seventh-day 



410 THB WORKS OF GOD. 

8abl)atariaii who ditmmnavlgated the ^lobe ml^ht thus retam to his startiiiff point 
obaervinir the same Sabbath with his fellow Christiaos. A. S. Carman, in the Examiner, 
Jan. i, 18M, asserts that Heb. 4:5-9 alludes to the change of day from the seventh to the 
ilrst, in the references to "a Sabbath rat" that "rauuMlb," and to " anothor day " taking the 
place of the original promised day of rest. Teaching of the Twelve Apostles : ^ On the 
Lord's Day assemble ye together, and give thanks, and break bread." 

The change from the seventh day to the first seems to have been due to the resurrec* 
tion of Christ upon "the ftnt day of thfliraek" (lat28:i), to his meeting with the disciples 
upon that day and upon the succeeding Sunday ( John SO: M), and to the pouring out of 
the Spirit upon the Pentecostal Sunday seven weeks after (ietsS:!— see Bap. Quar. 
Bev., 185 : 220-232 ). Thus by Christ's own example and by apostolic sanction the first 
day became ** the Lard's day " ( Kot. 1 : 10 ), on which believers met regularly each week with 
theirLord(i6t8 20:7— "thoftntdayofthevook, vhon "w vwe gathered together to brak bread") and 
brought together their benevolent contributions ( i Oor. 16 : 1, 2 — " How cenowming the oolleetioa far 
the Bunts . . . Upon the flnt day of the veek let each one of yon lay by him in ftore, ai he may prober, that no eol- 
leetioni be made vhen I oome "). Eusebius, Com. on Fi. 92 ( Migne, Y : 1 191, C ) : *' Wherefore those 
things [ the Levitical regulations ] having been already rejected, the Logos through the 
new Covenant transferred and changed the festival of the Sabbath to the rising of the 
sun . . . the Lord's day . . . holy and spiritual Sabbaths." 

Justin Martyr, First Apology: " On the day called Sunday all who live in city or 
country gather together in one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings 
of the prophets are read. . . . Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common 
assembly, because it is the first day on which Ood made the world and Jesus our Savior 
on the same day rose from the dead. For he was crucified on the day before, that of 
Saturn ( Saturday) ; and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun 
< Sunday ), having appeared to his apostles and disciples he taught them these things 
which we have submitted to you for your consideration.'* This seems to intimate that 
Jesus between his rosurrection and ascension gave command respecting the obser- 
vance of the first day of the week. He was " neeired ap" only after " he had ginn eonmandment 
throogh the Holy Spirit nnto the apoetlea vhom he had ohoeen " ( ieta 1 : 2 ). 

The Christian Sabbath, then, is the day of Christ's resurrection. The Jewish Sabbath 
oommemoratod only the beginning of the world ; the Christian Sabbath commemor- 
ates also the new creation of the world in Christ, in which Ood's work in humanity 
first becomes complete. C. H. M. on Gen. 2 : *' If I celebrate the seventh day it marks md 
as an earthly man, inasmuch as that day is clearly the rest of earth— creation-rest ; if I 
intelligently celebrate the first day of the week, I am marked as a heavenly man, believ- 
ing in the new creation in Christ." ( GaL 4 : 10, 11 — " To obeenre days, and montlu^ and eeaeon^ and 
yean. lam afraid of yon, least by any means I have beetoved labor npon yon in rain"; Col. 2:16,17— "Let no 
man therefore Jadge yon in meat, or in drink, or in reapeet of a feast day or a nev moon or a sabbath day : vhich are 
a shadow of the things to oome ; bat the body is Ohrist'a') See George S. Gray, Eight Studies on the 
Lord's Day ; Hcssey, Bampton Lectures on the Sunday ; QilfiUan, The Sabbath ; Wood, 
Sabbath Essays; Bacon, Sabbath Observance; Hadley, Essays Philological and Criti- 
cal, 325-345; Hodge, Syst. Thcol., 3 : SZl-QiR; Lotz, Quasstiones de Historia Sabbatl; 
Maurice, Sermons on the Sabbath ; Prize Essays on the Sabbath ; Crafts, The Sabbath 
for Man ; A. E. Waffie, The Lord's Day; Alvah Hovey, Studies in Ethics and Religion, 
271-330; Gulrey, The Hallowed Day; Gamble, Sunday and the Sabbath; Driver, art.: 
Sabbath, in Hastings' Bible Dictionary; Broadus, Am. Com. on Kat 12:8. For the 
seventh-day view, see T. B. Brown, The Sabbath ; J. N. Andrews, History of the Sab- 
bath. Per contrOt see Prof. A. Rauschenbuscb, Saturday or Sunday? 



SECTION II. — PRESERVATION. 

1. Definition op Pbbseryation. 

Preservation is that continuous agency of Qod by which he maintains 
In existence the things he has created, together with the properties and 
powers with which he has endowed them. As the doctrine of creation is 




PBOOP OF THE DOOTRIKB OF PRESERVATION'. 411 

onr attempt to explain the existenoe of the tmiyerse, so the doctrine of 
Preservation is our attempt to explain its continnanoe. 

In explanation we remark : 

( a ) Preservation is not creation, for preservation prednpposes creation. 
That which is preserved must already exist, and must have come into exist- 
ence by the creative act of God, 

( 6 ) Preservation is not a mere negation of action, or a refraining to 
destroy, on the part of God. It is a positive agency by which, at every 
moment, he sustains the persons and the forces of the universe. 

( c ) Preservation implies a natural concurrence of God in all operations 
of matter and of mind. Though personal beings exist and God's will is not 
the sole force, it is stiU true that, without his concurrence, no person or 
force can continue to exist or to act. 

Domer, System of Doctrine, 2 :4(M2—'* Creation and preservation cannot bo the 
same thin^Ti for then man would be only the product of natural forces supervised by 
God, ~ whereas, man is above nature and is inexplicable from nature. Nature is not 
the whole of the universe, but only the preliminary basis of it. . . . The rest of God is not 
cessation of activity, but is a new exercise of power. " Nor is God ** the soul of the 
universe. ** This phrase is pantheistic, and implies that God is the only ajpcnt. 

It is a wonder that physical life continues. The pumpin^r of blood through the 
heart, whether we sleep or wake, requires an expenditure of energy far beyond our 
ordinary estimates. The muscle of the heart never rests except between the beats. 
All the blood in the body passes through the heart In each half-minute. The grip of 
the heart is erreater than that of the fist. The two ventricles of the heart hold on the 
average ten ounces or five-eighths of ,a pound, and this amount is pumped out at each 
beat. At 72 per minute, this is 45 pounds per minute, 2,700 pounds per hour, and 64,80C 
pounds or 32 and four tenths tons per day. Encyclopasdia Britannica, 11 : 564— " The 
heart does about one-fifth of the whole mechanical work of the body — a work 
equivalent to raising its own weight over 13,000 feet an hour. It takes its rest only in 
short snatches, as it were, its action as a whole being continuous. It must necessarily 
be the earliest sufferer from any improvidence as regards nutrition, mental emotion 
being in this respect quite as i>otential a cause of constitutional bankruptcy as the most 
violent muscular exertion.'* 

Before the days of the guillotine In France, when the criminal to bo executed sat in a 
chair and was decapitated by one blow of the sharp sword, an observer declared that 
the blood spouted up several feet into the air. Yet this great force is exerted by the 
heart so noiselessly that we are for the most part unconscious of it. The power at 
work is the power of God. and we call that exercise of power by the name of preserva- 
tion. Crane, Religion of To-morrow, 130— "We do not get broad because God 
instituted certain laws of growing wheat or of baking dough, he leaving these laws to 
run of themselves. But God, personally present in the wheat, makes it grow, and in 
the dough turns it into bread. He does not make gravitation or cohesion, but these are 
phases of his present action. Spirit is the reality, matter and law are the modes of its 
expression. So in redemption it is not by the working of some perfect plan that God 
saves. He is the immanent God, and all of his benefits are but phases of his person 
and immediate infiuenoe.'* 

IL Proof op the Docjtrinb op Pbbsebvation. 

1. From Scripture, 

In a number of Scripture x>assages, preservation is expressly distin- 
guished from creation. Though God rested from his work of creation 
and established an order of natural forces, a special and continuous divine 
activity is declared to be put forth in the upholding of the universe and its 



413 THE WORKS OF GOD. 

powers. This dmD6 actmty, moreover, is declared to be the scttritj of 
Christ ; as he is the mediating agent in creation, so he is the inft<im< :iwg 
agent in preservation. 



• :l— "IkH vt J A wik , cTWtkN akw; tknlMt maia hmnm,i^ teiw d hmima, vitk all 
tfairhM^tlt«rtkaad«attagift«tiwtkgw^ttoMM«aA«attatiaiatyii,aadtfcw fi « «iwi tl<aaU"; Uk 
7:»— -OtkN«ilih«[iiuuv.'pmn« ]tfMm: " PiiX:! — "tkNFrMrr«iBuaBdlMHt'';i»4:». » 
— "ThMlik«ltvft7tMrk«tt.tiMj«%Aii nttratBtkcrint TWaaaiMlftrti tkjSpri^tktyaivowM, 
AaitkNmtvHtthtfcMtflktgTfai.'* SeePerowneoo Pil1M~'*A peatm to tlieGod whoisin 
and with nature for good. '* Humboldt, Coemos. 2 : 413 — *" Paalm KM presents an ima^o 
of the whole Cosmos.** Aca 17 :»—"]> ha v« Im. aai Mf% aaA haft oir hm^" ; CoL 1 : 17— "in kirn 
•Utkagi «Miil";ltkl;»,3— "t|fcilrfiig«nttagibytlt ««« tf kit praw." Ma 5: 17— •'Ij Iktkw 
irarkilk tT« olil mv, aai I vwk '* — refers most naturally to prraervation, since creation is a 
work completed; compare €«.2:2 — "oBtkiaTiBtk^jfiid luMkisvork vki^ktMai^: aai 
kriflM «a tktMfwtk ^yfrva all kit vwk vkuk kt kai ■Oil'* God is theuphuklcr of physical life ; 
seoPnee:!.!— ''•kUBMrM....vk»kiIiKkoirmlialiftL'* God is also the upholder of spirit- 
ual life ; see 1 TliL I : IS — **! ikHft tkM U Ikt Bfkt «r fiid vk» pnMrrak aU tkings aliTt " ( ^Wyoivvtn^ 
nrnrrm ) — the ^reat Preserver enables us to persist in our Christian course. JUL 4 : 4— 
'* Mm than sa Uft by >faidak>i> kit by •twywtitkal F ww ditt tttrftktawtkrffiid— though originally 
referrinir to physical nourishment is equally true of spiritual sustentation. In H. 104 : 26 
~ "Tk«t p tka tkift,** Dawson, Mi^. Ideas of Evolution, thinks the reference is not to 
man's works but to GiHlX as the parallelism : "Tkav ii kriaskaa'* would indicate, and that 
by *'tkipi " an* numnt ** floaters *' like the nautilus, which is a ^ UtUe ship." The 104tk PialB 
Is a lonir hymn to the preserving power of God, who keeps alive all the creatures of the 
diH«m lH>th small and great. 

Wo may argiio the preserving agency of €k>d from the following 
ouuHidoratious : 

( <• ) Mather and mind ore not self -existent Since they have not the 
oaum« of their lH>ing in tlicmHelves, their continuance as well as their origin 
muMt \h} ihio to a B\i}>orii>r power. 

lH»nwr, (llaulnmiilt'hn* : "Wen* thi* world self -existent. It would be God, not world, 
ami no M'UyUtn would Ih» ixnwlblo. . . . The world has itHt^ptlvity for new creations; 
but t h<ins oiMV hit rtMlmtMl. an> sul»Jwt, like the n>st, to the hiw of preservation ••—<.€., 
arv dtHH'iuttnit for their iH)utinuiHl existence uin^n God. 

( 6 ) YonH> impHoH a will of which it is the direct or indirect expression. 
WV Know ot foiHM* only through tho exorcise of our own wills. Since will 
W Hk> ouIy chuho t»f which wo have direct knowleilge, second causes in 
iMlitri^ utMy 1n> n^Ki^rdod iim only socondary, regular, and automatic workings 

|\*r muh1i»W thw»rlt* ldentlf>Mng fort^ with divine will, see HerscheU Popular 
i#\^MVVtt \^\ Moutino Hul»J«'*'<*«» *'*»! Murphy, 8i»iontiflo Bases, 1»-13, 39-36,42^; Duke of 
Altt^lk IHMlh* of l-»»*^« *■•* *-'^5 Wii/lmv. Natural ik»loi'tlon, dswari ; Bowen, Metaphysics 
a^Ill^hUWi IW tWi Mnrtliio'Ui, WwiyM. 1 : 08. s»\ and Study. 1 : 244 — ** Second causes in 
^^l^yy bk^rllH* IMIIIH' »*«'•«***»"**• **"* Mint Cruise at* thonutoniatic movement of the 
MMiuhMilM WHllilHir iHHiiK to i\w t\mt diH'UUm of the will that initiated the walk. *» It is 
!!MNl\4\hvM Umi wi« tMinnot thiw Itlenllf)' ft»rtH» with will. Ikh^usc in many cases tho 
aSa! v^lTmi' WlU N rrullh'*Mi for tho n«nsoii that iiorvoiw and muscular force is lacking. 
lEkiyami^V^'^'MUy tl»w< ri»n»«« tHumot bo UlontimHl with human will, not that it cannot 
jj**?! ^^ ^Ilh \\\p dlvln« will. To tho divino wUl no force is lacking ; in God wiU 

milkiiMt ti^r '^'***"^ tho vlow «»r Mnino do Illran. that causation pertains only to spirit. 
"--^- ll^JiiVl ImMIooI, m ftHHi objoris to thin vlow as follows: "This Implies, first. 
JJJJ^^JJJJlll^ill \\f M^^ji^ m\W* M iM^IfMMHit nidlotory. But the mind recognizes 

nKSiiiSilklll MH^HHV ^"^ voluntary ; Ikhwuso we derive our notion of 
%MfP'^f!^!ir^^^^^^^^b Ihat thu oausal rolatioQ always involves will: it 




PROOF OF THE DOCTRINE OP PRESERVATION. 413 

would follow that the universe, so far as it Is not intelliflrent« is impossible. It implies, 
Bocondly, that there is but one a^nt in the universe, and that the phenomena of matter 
and mind are but manifestations of one single force— the Creator's.** We reply to 
this reasoninsT by assertin^r that no dead thin^r can act, and that what we call involuntary 
spiritual energies arc really unconscious or unremembered at tivitics of the will. 

FkY>m our present point of view we would also criticize Hod^re, Systematic Theology, 
1 : 690— *' Because we get our idea of force from mind, it does not follow that mind is 
the only force. That mind is a cause is no proof that electricity may not be a cause. If 
matter is force and nothing but force, then matter is nothing, and the external world 
is simply God. In spite of such argument, men will believe that the external world is 
a reality — that matter is, and that it is the cause of the effects we attribute to its 
agency." New Englander, Sept. 1883:552— *' Man in early time used second causes, 
<. e., machines, very little to accomplish his purposes. His usual mode of action was by 
the direct use of his hands, or his voice, and he naturally ascribed to the gods the same 
method as his own. His own use of second causes has led man to higher conceptions of 
the divine action. *' Domer : ** If the world had no independence, it would not reflect 
God, nor would creation mean anything.'* But this independence is not absolute. 
Even man lives, moves and has his being in God ( ids 17 : 28 ), and whatever has come into 
being, whether material or spiritual, has life only in Christ ( John i : 3, 4, marginal reading). 

Preservation is Qod*s continuous willing. Bowne, Introd. to Psych. Theory, 806, 
speaks of ** a kind of wholesale willing.** Augustine : ** Dei voluntas est rerum natura.*' 
Principal Falrbairn : " Nature is spirit." Tennyson, The Ancient Sage : *' Force is from 
the heights.'* Lord Gifford, quoted in Max MUller, Anthropological Religion, 888— 
** The human soul Is neither self -derived nor self -subsisting. It would vanish if it had 
not a substance, and its substance is God.*' Upton, Hibbert Lectures, 284, 285—*' Mat- 
ter is simply spirit in its lowest form of manifestation. The absolute Cause must be 
that deeper Self which we find at the heart of our own self -consciousness. By self- 
differentiation God creates both matter and mind." 

( c) God's sovereignty requires abeUef in his special preserving agency ; 
since this sovereignty would not be absolute, if anything oconrred or 
existed independent of his will. 

James Martineau, Seat of Authority, 29, 80— ^ All cosmic force is wilL . . . This iden- 
tification of nature with God's will vxmld be pantheistic only if we turned the propo- 
sition round and identified God with no more than the life of the univeise. But we do 
not deny transcendency. Natural forces are God's will, but God*s will is more than 
they. He is not the equivalent of the All, but its directing Mind. God is not the rage 
of the wild beast, nor the sin of man. There are things and beings objective to him. . . . 
He puts his power into that which is other than himaelf^ and he parts with oth^r use of 11 
by pre^ngagement to an end. Yet he is the continuous source and supply of power to 
the system." 

Natural forces are generic volitions of God. But human wills, with their power of 
alternative, are the product of God's self-limitation, even more than nature is, for 
human wills do not always obey the divine will,— they may even oppose it. Nothing 
finite is only finite. In it is the Infinite, not only as immanent, but also as transcend- 
ent, and in the case of sin, as opposing the sinner and as punishing him. This continu- 
ous willing of God has its analogy in our own subconscious willing. J. M. Whiton, in 
Am. Jour. Theol., Apl. 1901 : 320— *' Our own will, when we walk, does not put forth a sep- 
arate volition for every step, but depends on the automatic action of the lower nerve- 
centres, which it both sets in motion and keeps to their work. So the divine Will does 
not work in innumerable separate acts of volition.*' A. R. Wallace : *'The whole uni- 
verse is not merely dependent on, but actually is, the will of higher Intelligenoes or of 
one supremo Intelligence. . . . Man's free will is only a larger artery for the controlling 
current of the universal Will, whose time-long evolutionary flow constitutes the self- 
revelation of the Infinite One." This latter statement of Wallace merges the finite will 
far too completely in the will of God. It is true of nature and of all holy beings, but 
it is untrue of the wicked. These are indeed upheld by God in their being, but opposed 
by God in their conduct. Preservation leaves room for human freedom, responsibility, 
sin, and guilt. 

All natural forces and all personal beings therefore give testimony to the will of GK)d 
which originated them and which continually sustains them. The physical universe, 
indeed, is fn no sense independent of God, for its forces are only the constant willing 



414 THE WORKS OF GOD. 

of Gk)d, and Its laws are only the habits of Qod. Only in the free wHI of intelligent 
beings has God disjoined from himself any portion of force and made it capable of con- 
tradicting his holy will. But even in free agents God does not cease to uphold. The 
being that sins can maintain its existence only through the preserving agency of God. 
The doctrine of preservation therefore holds a middle ground between two extremes. 
It holds that finite personal beings have a real existence and a relative independence. 
On the other hand it holds that these persons retain their being and theur powers 
only as they are upheld by God. 

God is the soul, but not the sum, of things. Christianity holds to God's transcendence 
as weU as to God's immanence. Immanence alone is God imprisoned, as transcendence 
alone is God banished. Gore, Incarnation, 196 aq,—*'* Christian theology is the harmony 
of pantheism and deism.** It maintains transcendence, and so has all the good of pan- 
theism without its limitations. It maintains immanence, and so has all the good of 
deism without its inability to show how God could be blessed without creation. Diman, 
Thcistic Argument, 867— ** The dynamical theory of nature as a plastic organism, per- 
vaded by a system of forces uniting at last In one supremo Force, is altogether more in 
harmony with the spirit and teaching of the Gospel than the mechanical conceptions 
which prevailed a century ago, which insisted on viewing nature as an intricate 
machine, fashioned by a great Artificer who stood wholly apart from it.** On the 
persistency of force, super cunet^it aubter cuneta, see Bib. Sac, Jan. 1881 : 1-34 ; Cooker, 
Theistic Conception of the World, 172-243, esp. S96. The doctrine of preservation there- 
fore holds to a God both In nature and beyond nature. According as the one or the 
other of these elements is exclusively regarded, we have the error of Deism, or the 
error of Continuous Creation— theories which we now proceed to consider. 

in. ThEOBIES WmOH yiBTUAIiLY DENY THE DOCIBINE OF PbESEBYATION. 

1. Deism, 

This view represents the universe as a self-sustained mechanism, from 
which God withdrew as soon as he had created it, and which he left to a 
process of self-development. It was held in the seventeenth and eighteenth 
centuries by the English Herbert, Ck)llins, Tindal, and Bolingbroke. 

Lord Herbert of Cherbury was one of the first who formed deism into a system. His 
book De Veritate was published in 1624. He argues against the probability of God's 
revealing his will to only a portion of the earth. This he calls '* ])articular religion." 
Yet he sought, and according to his own account he received, a revelation from heaven 
to encourage the publication of his work in disproof of revelation. He " asked for a 
sign," and was answered by a **loud though gentle noise from the heavens.'* He had 
the vanity to think his book of such importance to the cause of truth as to extort a 
declaration of the divine will, when the interests of half mankind could not secure any 
revelation at all ; what God would not do for a nation, he would do for an individual. 
See Leslie and Leland, Method with the Deists. Deism is the exaggeration of the truth 
of QoiVs transcendence. See Christlieb, Modem Doubt and Christian Belief, 190-209. 
Melanchthon illustrates by the shipbuilder : '' Ut faber discedit a navi exstructa et 
rclinquit cam nautis.'* God is the maker, not the keeper, of the watch. In Sartor 
Kesartus, Carlyle makes TcufelsdrOckh s])eak of ''An absentee God, sitting idle ever 
since the first Sabbath at the outside of the imiverse, and seeing it go.** Blunt, Diet. 
Doct. and Hist. Theology, art. : Deism. 

** Deism emphasized the inviolability of natural law, and held to a mechanical view of 
the world ** ( Ten Broeke ). Its God is a sort of Hindu Brahma, " as idle us a painted 
ship upon a painted ocean*'— mere being, without content or movement. Bruce, 
Apologetics, 115-131 —*^ God made the world so good at the first that the beet he can do 
is to let it alone. Prayer is inadmissible. Deism implies a Pelagian view of human 
nature. Death redeems us by separating us from the body. There is natural immor- 
tality, but no resurrection. Lord Herbert of Cherbury, the brother of the poet George 
Herbert of Bemcrton, represents the rise of Deism; Lord Bolingbroke its decline. 
Blount assailed the divine Person of the founder of the faith ; Collins its foundation 
in prophecy ; Woolston its miraculous attestation ; Toland its canonical litoraturo. 
Tindal took more general ground, and sought to show that a special revelation was 
unneceeeary, impossible, unverifiable, the religion of nature being sufficient and super- 
ior to all religions of positive institution.** 



i 



THEORIES WHICH DBKT PBSSSBYJLTIOK. 416 

We object to this view that : 

( a ) It rests upoo a false analogy. — Man is able to oonstmet a self-mov- 
ing watch only because he employs preexisting forces, such as gravity, 
elasticity, cohesion. But in a theory which likens the universe to a machine, 
these forces are the very things to be accounted for. 

Deism regards the universe as a ** perpetual motion.'* Modem views of the dissipa- 
tion of energry have served to discredit it. Will Is the only explanation of the forces in 
nature. But according- to deism, Ood builds a house, shuts himself out, locks the 
door, and then tics his own hands in order to make sure of never using the key. John 
Caird, Fund. Ideas of Christianity, 114-138 ~ '* A made mind, a spiritual nature created 
by an external omnipotence, is an impossible and self -contradictory notion* • . . The 
human contriver or artist deals with materials prepared to his hand. Deism reduces 
God to a finite anthropomorphic personality, as pantheism annuls the finite world or 
absorbs it in the Infinite." Hence Spinoza, the pantheist, was the great antagonist of 
16th century deism. See Woods, Works, 2 : 40. 

( & ) It is a system of anthropomorphism, while it professes to exdade 
anthropomorphism. — Because the upholding of all things would involve a 
multiplicity of minute cares if man were the agent, it conceives of the 
upholding of the universe as involving such burdens in the case of God. 
Thus it saves the dignity of God by virtually denying his omnipresence, 
omniscience, and omnipotence. 

The infinity of Ood turns into sources of delight all that would seem care to man. To 
God's inexhaustible fulness of life there are no burdens involved in the upholding of 
the universe he has created. Since God, moreover, is a perpetual observer, we may 
alter the poet's verse and say : ** There 's not a flower that 's bom to blush unseen And 
waste its sweetness on the desert air." God does not expose his children as soon as 
they are born. They are not only his oflTspring ; they also live, move and have their 
being in liim. and are partakers of his divine nature. Gordon, Christ of To day, 200— 
**The worst person in all history ia something to God, if he be nothing to the world.** 
See Chalmers, Astronomical Discourses, in Works, 7 : 68. Kurtz, The Bible and Astron- 
omy, in Introd. to History of Old Covenant, Izxxii— xcviii. 

(c ) It cannot be maintained without denying all providential interfer- 
ence, in the history of creation and the subsequent history of the world. — 
But the introduction of life, the creation of man, incarnation, regeneration, 
the communion of intelligent creatures with a present God, and interposi- 
tions of God in secular history, are matters of fact. 

Deism therefore continually tends to atheism. Upton, Hibbert Lectures, 287 — " The 
defect of deism is that, on the human side, it treats all men as isolated individuals, for- 
getful of the immanent divine nature which interrelates them and in a measure uni- 
fies them ; and that, on the divine side, it separates men from God and makes the 
relation between them a purely external one/' Buskin : *" The divine mind is as visible 
in its full energy of operation on every lowly bank and mouldering stone as in the lift- 
ing of the pillars of heaven and settling the foundations of the earth ; and to the rightly 
perceiving mind there is the same majesty, the same power, the same unity, and the 
same perfection manifested in the casting of the clay as in the scattering of the cloud, 
in the mouldering of dust as in the kindling of the day-star." See Pearson, Infidelity, 
87 ; Hanne, Idee der absoluten PersOnlichkeit, 70. 

2. Contimious Creation, 

This view regards the universe as from moment to moment the result of 
a new creation. It was held by the Now England theologians Edwards, 
Hopkins, and Emmons, and more recently in Germany by Bothe. 



4^t ^33 -riBSB w no. 



rf ««x. »r*' ^^-r- fjU" Mt^r-zZ 1- aa iz:. 

* 1/1- 

Ufl^ ft IlllUr 9flil« V" MT IC I. « 





lavru fjk. Tf-wmt, « - 

♦^1 Kit 'ME * I- aume Ir-m. : 
*tiiS4r» - - . Z", »m Tr«fc*«rnr ▼m -» sunt. — ^aaias it 

*t* -». «ys»nr> •»•?: Ji *- -^ lum'.Mur^t t "zstnr T.mioasz^ m i 

'Y ■ !#► Ji«rrf»r-J4« w -.r*^ jk.ci»- i.^. i»r»i -Ji» -rvrw. TTi 

pJ'\^4,. . «^ JM luK JO. Sit^ •»*-. J^w. 3^ : IM. 9t 

<: -4. 

/%» vrr V j» .r. HMr.r.''».T!ngr '^a*^ ^ l.r-at * :- r^w -rZ^ 
%.* ' -jn- V .ntit.'. V ..• j» t. ? .r-* ac ▼■eL J* iitt 

frr^^'tA XMj *sjk.'Mk » v< ««:auK>: Tilt rn^ir .C irra. ji 

W*. ..*'-•« tc* --.-".nfc ^. t.u^ s.-JBi'». =».«- -riaii •!^xafQ icy c <s.^:srsL -.t 

«/• ;•?'/■,.'>< JCt >*j^. Vz.Y^M.^pf if XjarL 75- te* ii-» ?<mi re. Ici »to ^i 

ti -^ '. .7 : • ir;A' ».'x-^-t '..vt ;*?f ';r=«»T. i= i-:* er*r ■; ti* 7U0 &3l i: ij«- case c< ske 

<«.'V ^^ir*- ''f '/^-* i'* ^'-^Mi. «r<fe IJ V*: mad r=.'.T»r *::ii iavr ■:-ur l«iir." Dr. *:<;TTr Ijc«i#c>. 
V, *A- hfi^M* Am^j^iOL^yjti .Ti Iftl : " 7^ tiifer7>rr tAtvtxs cMXser aad sad ^aj f»*« 

7>/ thix «'; o>//yrt, n\^m i\sf: folknring grcnrnds : 

( a f It 4Vftdrn0\v^ Xh*', U^iui/mv of coDaaaasDem thmt regnlar and 
i'.tij'.tiityt: M/rt-vitv i>( u'/t tb^^; iitfrTe rei^etid/^n of an initijil decision^ bat is an 
i',xi'tt'A^¥'. f/f Xht; wiJ] auXmly different in kind. 

IM/Ut. Ut bin tttiU/Vfp^ix of Mio'l, 144, iiKlicaUa the error in Contlnuoos Creatioa as 
ff,iUfWn '. "Tii^i wtffUi wf/rUi fff Xhintfn In momentlj quenclKd and thoa rpplac<^ bj a 
nimintf ¥n,rU\ of lutttmllf Wfw rf«JJtk4i.'* The wards of the poet would then be literally 
ittt*' '. " t',v*fry fr'tiharfJ ri<rir crtrntUtn^ A divine improvteation. From the heart of did 
f/r'/««4yj«/' «f\U\, M/'taph., 1 : 1«— ** ImtaMlis tellua, Innabilis unda.'* Seth. He^eUan- 
Um Mr>'l Vt'tntffutlUy, fdt, t^ayn that. Ut Fichte, **the world was thus perpetually created 
Hin'w In «'i«/'h nrilt><} Mplrlt. — r«;v';ltttfon to iDtelliffenceljeinfr the only admissible mean- 
iitit i/f t Uut tuuf-U iibijii''d Urrrn, (;r»«tlori/* A. L. Mr>ore, Science and the Faith, 1S4, Isft 

" A I iKv/ry of tn.itutUttMl lriU;rvi;Ntfon implies, as its correlate, a theory of ordinar}- 
nimtinn. . , . V*tr ChrlntlMris th#? XvkiM t*t nature are the acts of Gfid. KeliinoD relatca 
\\%»m- fiii-U UtiUA fui thi'lr author; mAt-nas relates them to one another as parts of a 
vimi/Ui imU'r, lli'lttflon do««i not tf;ll of this interrelation ; science cannot tell of their 
M'lllllOlt loOo<l," 

( 'oiiMiiiioiin (M'hMoii In an «trT(m<9<tun thiHiry because it applies to human wills a prln- 
( \\tU* will' h 1m frill* only of Irrational iiatun; and which is only partially true of that. I 
lino Mr I lull f am not. (l<MlM<^lnfr. My will Is proof that not all force is divine wilL Even 
on Ili4< iiioniMlIn vU<w, nior(M)vor, we may siieak of second causes in nature, since God's 
f ''icntar himI liiitiliiiiil aiftion Is u wtcond und Hul)se<iuent thinflr« while his act of initiation 



THEORIES WHICH DEKY PBESBBYATIOK. 41? 

and organization Is the first Neither the universe nor any part of it Is to be identified 
with Ood, any more than my thoughts and acts are to be identified with me. Martineau, 
in Nineteenth Ocntury, April, 1896 : 609—'* What is nature^ but the promise of God's 
pledged and habitual causality ? And what is spirit, but the province of his free caus- 
ality responding to needs and affections of his free children? • . . God is not a retired 
architect who may now and then be called in for repairs. Nature is not self -active, 
and God's agency is not intrusive.'* William Watson, Poems, 88— *'If nature be a 
phantasm, as thou say'st, A splendid fiction and prodigious dream. To reach the real 
and true I'll make no haste. More than content with worlds that only seem." 

(b) It exaggerates Qod*s power only by sacrifioing his tnithy love, and 
holiness ; — for if finite personalities are not what they seem — namely, 
objective existences — God's veracity is impugned ; if the hnman sonl has 
no real freedom and life, Gk>d'8 love hius made no self-oommonioation to 
creatures ; if God*s will is the only force in the universe. Clod's holiness 
can no longer be asserted, for the divine "will must in that case be regarded 
as the author of human sin. 

Upon this view personal identity is inexplicable. Edwards bases identity upon the 
' arbitrary decree of God. God can therefore, by so decreeing, make Adam's posterity 
one with their first father and responsible for his sin. Edwards's theory of continuous 
creation, indeed, was devised as an explanation of the problem of original sin. The 
divinely appointed union of acts and exercises with Adam was held sufficient, without 
union of substance, or natural generation from him, to explain our being bom corrupt 
and guilty. This view wou id have been impossible, if Edwards had not been an idealist, 
making far too much of acts and exercises and far too little of substance. 

It is difficult to explain the origin of Jonathan Edwards's idealism. It has sometimes 
been attributed to the reading of Berkeley. Dr. Samuel Johnson, afterwards President 
of King's College in New York City, a personal friend of Bishop Berkeley and an ardent 
follower of his teaching, was a tutor in Yale College while Edwards was a student. 
But Edwards was in Weathersfleld while Johnson remained in New Haven, and was 
among those disaffected towards Johnson as a tutor. Yet Edwards, Original Sln« 
479, seems to allude to the Berkeleyan philosophy when he sajrs : ** The course of 
nature is demonstrated by recent improvements in philosophy to be indeed . . . • 
nothing but the established order and operation of the Author of luture " ( see Allen, 
Jonathan Edwards. Id, 308, 800 ). President McCracken, in Philos. Rev., Jan. 1882 : 26-42, 
holds that Arthur Collier's Clavis Universalis is the source of Edwards's idealism. It is 
more probable that his idealism was the result of his own independent thinking^ 
occasioned perhaps by mere hints from Locke, Newton, Cudworth, and Norris, with 
whose writings he certainly was acquainted. See E. G. Smyth, In Am. Jour. TheoL, 
Oct. 1897 : 956; Prof. Gardiner, in Philos. Kev., Nov. 1900 : 57»-606. 

How thorough-going this idealism of Edwards was may be learned from Noah Por- 
ter's Discourse on Bishop George Berkeley, 71, and quotations from Edwards, in Joum. 
Spec. Phiios., Oct. 1883 : 401-420— ''Nothing else has a proper being but spirits, and 
bodies are but the shadow of being. . . . Seeing the brain exists only mentally, I there- 
fore acknowledge that I speak improi>erly when I say that the soul is in the brain only« 
as to its operations. For, to speak yet more strictly and abstractedly, 't is nothing but 
the connection of the soul with these and those modes of its own ideas, or those men- 
tal acts of the Deity, seeing the brain exists only in idea. . . . That which truly Is the 
substance of all bodies is the infinitely exact and precise and perfectly stable idea in 
God^s mind, together with his stable will that the same shall be gradually communi- 
cated to us and to other minds according to certain fixed and established methods and 
laws ; or, in somewhat different language, the infinitely exact and precise divine idea, 
together ivith an answerable, perfectly exact, precise, and stable will, with respect to 
correspondent communications to created minds and effects on those minds." It is easy 
to see how, from this view of Edwards, the '* Exercise-system " of Hopkins and Emmons 
naturally developed itself. On Edwards's Idealism, see Frazer's Berkeley ( Blackwood's 
Philos. Classics), 189, 140. On personal identity, see Bp. Butler, Works (Bohn's ed.)» 
827-^34. 

( c ) As deism tends to atheism, so the doctrine of oontinnons creation 
tends to pantheism. — Arguing that» because we get onr notion of force 

27 



418 TEB WORKS OF GOOu 

fixim the action of oiir ofwn willfl^ therefore aD force m^ 
will, it 18 compelled to merge the human will in this all-comprehending 
will of Crod. Mind and matter alike become phenomena of one force, 
which has the attribfntes of both ; and, with the distinct existence and per- 
sonality of the human soul, we lose the distinct existence and personalis 
of God, as well as the freedom and accountability of man. 



Lotze trtes to eMape from material causes and yet hokl to teeond caiiset, hj tntiinat- 
iDflT that tiwse seoond causiv maj be spirits. But tbougli we can see how there can be 
a sort of spirit in the brute and in the vegetable, it is hard to see how what we call 
insensate matter can have spirit in it. It must be a very peculiar sort of spirit— a 
deaf and dumb spirit, if any— and such a one does not help our thinldn^. On this 
theory the body of a do^ would need to be much more hicrh^ endowed than its souL 
James Seth, in PbHos. Bev^ Jan. 18M : 73 — ^ This principle of unity is a veritable lion's 
den,— all the footprints are in one direction. Either it is a bare unity —the One annuls 
the many ; or it is simply the All, — the ununified totality of existence.** Domer well 
remarks that ** Preservation is empowering of the creature and maintenance of its 
activity, not new bringing it into beinflr/* On the whole subject, see Julius MOller, 
I>octrine of an« 1 : 220-225 ; Phllippi, Olaubenslehre, S : 25»-2TS ; Baird, Elohim Bevealed, 
60; Hodge, Syst. TheoL, liSTt-G&l^ 506; Dabney, Theology, 33a, 330. 

IV. RmfARICfl UPON THB DiVINB GONCCBBENCE. 

( a ) The diyine efficiency interpenetrates that of man without destroying 
or absorbing it. The influx of Ckxl's sustaining energy is such that men 
retain their natural faculties and powers. God does not work all, but all 
inalL 

Preservation, then, is midway between the two errors of denying the first cause 
( deism or atheism ) and denying the second causes ( continuous creation or pantheism ). 
1 Cor. 12: 6— **ttoe an diTenitiM of vorkingi, but tk« nm God, vho vorketk aU tUngi in all" ; cf. Ipk. 1 :23— 
the church, " vkiek it kis bodj, tko fUnoM of kirn Uut ffiteft all in alL'* God's action is no actio in 
distorui, or action where he is not. It is rather action in and through free agents, in the 
case of intelligent and moral beings, while it is his own continuous willing in the case 
of nature. Men are second causes in a sense in which nature is not. God works 
through these human second causes, but ho does not supersede them. We cannot see 
the line between the two — the action of the first cause and the action of second causes ; 
yet both are real, and each is distinct from the other, though the method of God's eon- 
ourrenoe is inscrutable. As the pen and the hand together produce the writing, 
so God's working causes natural powers to work with him. The natural growth indi- 
cated by the words " vlieroiii it th« wed ttooof " ( Gob. 1:11) has its counterpart in the spiritual 
growth described in the words ** Ui seed abideth in kirn "( 1 John 3:9). Paul considers himself 
a reproductive agency in the hands of God : he begets children in the gospel (1 Cor. 4 : 15 ) ; 
yet the Now Testament speaks of this begetting as the work of God (1 Pet 1 : 3 ). We are 
bidden to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling, upon the very ground 
that it is God who works in us both to will and to work ( PhiL 2 : 12, 13 ). 

( 6 ) Though Gk>d preserves mind and body in their working, we are 
ever to remember that God concurs with the evil acts of his creatures only 
as they are natural acts, and not as they are eviL 

In holy action Ood gives the natural powers, and by his word and Spirit influences 
the soul to use these powers aright. But in evil action God gives only the natural 
powers ; the evil direction of these powers is caused only by man. Jer. 44 : 4 — " Oh, do not Uus 
abominable thing that I hato " ; Hab. 1 : 13 — "Thou that art of purer ejes than to behold oTil, and that canst not 
look oa porrerNnen, vhereCMro lookeit thoa npon them that deal treaoheroasly, and boldest thy peace vhen the vicked 
iwallowoth up the man that ii more righteons than he ? " James 1 : 13, 14 — " Let no man say when he is tempted, I 
•a ttmptid of God ; for God oannot be tompted vith oril, and ho himself tempteth no man : bat each man is tempted, 
whfli he is drawn away by his own Inst, and enticei" Aaron excused himself for making an Egypt- 
ian idol by saying that the fire did it ; he asked the people for gold ; "so they gave it me ; and 
I«it itivto the iirsb ud tiuro oam« ont this oalf " (Ix. 32:24). Aaron leaves outone important point 



DBPINinOK OP PROVIDENCE. 419 

—his own personal agency in it alL In like manner we lay the blame of our sins upon 
nature and upon God. Pym said of Strafford that God had given him great talents, of 
which the devil had given the application. But it is more true to say of the wicked 
man that he himself gives the application of his Gk>d-given powers. We are electric 
oars for which God furnishes the motive-power, but to which we the conductors give 
the direction. Wu are organs ; the wind or breath of the organ is God's ; but the finger- 
ing of the keys is ours. Since the maker of the organ Is also present at every moment 
as its preserver, the shameful abuse of bis instrument and the dreadful music that Is 
played are a continual grief and suffering to his souL Since it is Christ who upholds all 
things by the word of his power, preservation involves the suffering of Christ, and this 
suffering is his atonement, of which the culmination and demonstration are seen in the 
cross of Calvary (I«b. 1:3). On the importance of the idea of preservation In Ch^^ 
tian doctrine, see Calvin, Institutes, 1 : 18S ( chapter IB )• 



SECTION III. — PBOVIDBKOB. 

L Depinitiok op Pboyidsnob. 

Providence is tliat continuous agency of God by which he makes all the 
events of the physical and moral universe fulfill the original design with 
which he created it. 

As Creation explains the existence of the universe, and as Preservation 
explains its continuance, so Providence explains its evolution and progress. 

In explanation notice : 

( a ) Providence is not to be taken merely in its etymological sense of 
/oreseeing. It is /orseeing also, or a positive agency in connection with 
all the events of history. 

(b) Providence is to be distinguished from preservation. While preser- 
vation is a maintenance of the existence and powers of created things, 
providence is an actual care and control of them. 

( c ) Since the original plan of God is all-comprehending, the providence 
which executes the plan is all-comprehending also, embracing within its 
scope things small and great, and exercising care over individuals as well 
as over classes. 

( d ) In respect to the good acts of men, providence embraces aU those 
natural influences of birth and surroundings which prepare men for the 
operation of Gk)d's word and Spirit, and which constitute motives to obe- 
dience. 

( e ) In respect to the evil acts of men, providence is never the efficient 
cause of sin, but is by turns preventive, permissive, directive, and deter- 
minative. 

(/) Since Christ is the only revealer of God, and he is the medium of 
every divine activity, providence is to be regarded as the work of Christ ; 
see 1 Cor. 8:6 — " one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things " ; 
c/. John 5 : 17 — ** My Father worketh even until now, and I work," 

The Germans have the word FUrsehung, forseeing, looking out for, as well as the 
word Vorsehung, foreseeing, seeing beforehand. Our word * providence ' embraces the 
meanings of both these words. On the general subjeot of providenoe, see Phillppl« 



420 THK WORKS OF GOD. 

GteabeiHleiiie, 2:f7^a«: OaTin. Infdtntea* l:1SS-filf: Dick. TtaeolocT, l:4]t-llt; 
Hodge, .Srtt.T1ierjL.l:Sn-<lt: BQ>.tee^B:nt; a:5M: aS:31i: 30:98; N.W.TInjlor, 
XcynJ GovemiDimt, 2 : 2M-398b 

ProrMence fai God*i kttentloo ooooentnited e i wj a b e ie. His care Is microacopie as 
well M tek^coplc. Robert Browniny, Pippa raiww. qd .ingai: " All gerrice te the aame 
with 0<i4~ With God, wboae puppeta. best and wont. Are we: there to no last nor 
flrat." Canon Farrar : ** In one chapter of the Kotan to the story how Gabriel, as he 
waited by the gates of gold, was sent by God to earth to dp two things^ One was to 
prevent king Solomon from the sin of forgetting the hoar of prayer In ezultatioo 
rner bto royal steeds ; the other to help a little yellow ant on the slope of Ararat, which 
IhkI grrjwn wearyln getting food for its nest, and which would otherwtoe perish In the 
rain. To Gabriel tbe one behest seemed just as kingly as the other, since God had 
ortiert-il it. * Silently he left The Presence, and prerented the king's sin. And holp tbe 
little ant at entering in.* * Nothing to too high or low. Too mean or mighty, if God 
wilto it so.'" Yet a preacher began htosermononlaL lt:M— -TtowK7hunif7«rtoiia« 
Mt •il nmUni " — by saying : ** Why, some of you, my hearefa, do not beUere that eren 
four beads are all numbered ! ** 

A m'^dem prophet of unbelief in God*s providence to William Watson. In hto poem 
entitled Tbe Unlinown God, we read: ** When OTerarched by gorgeous night, I ware 
my trivial self away ; When all I was to all men's sight Shares the erasure of the day ; 
Tlu;n do I cast my cumbering load. Then do I gain a sense of God." Then he Ukeos 
tb*: God of the Old Testament to Odin and Zeus, and continues : **0 streaming worlds, 

cniw<l<:d sky, O life, and mine own soul's abjrss. Myself am scarce so small that I 
Hhotild iK^w to T>eit J like this ! This niy Begetter? Thto was what Man In bto violent 
youth Nr^ot. The God I know of I shall ne'er Know, though he dwells exceeding nigh. 
Bailie thou tbe stone and find me there. Cleave thou the wood and there am L Yea, in 
my flesh his Spirit doth flow, T<k> near, too far, for me to know. WhateW my deeds, 

1 am not sure That I can pleasure him or vex : I, that must use a speech so poor It 
narrows the Supreme with sex. N'fites he the good or ill in man ? To hope he cares to 
all I can. I hope with fear. For did I trust Thto \ision granted me at birth. The sire 
of heaven would seem leas Just Than many a faulty son of earth. And so he seems 
ind<M;d I But then, I trust it not, thto bounded ken. And dreaming much, I never dare 
To dream that In my prisoned soul The flutter of a trembling prayer Gan move the 
Mind ttiat to the Whole. Though kneeling nations watch and 3ream, Does the primeval 
Purp^Me turn ? Best by remembering God, say some. We keep our high imperial lot. 
Fortune, I fear, hath oftenest come When we forgot— when we forgot I A lovelier faith 
their happier crown. But history laughs and weeps it down : Know they not well how 
8(;vf*n times seven. Wronging our mighty arms with rust. We dared not do the work 
of hcii ven. Lest heaven should hurl us in the dust ? The work of heaven ! 'T to waitincr 
still The sanction of the heavenly wllL Unmeet to be profaned by praise Is he whose 
crjils the world enfold ; The God on whom I ever gaze. The God I never once behold : 
Abi>v<' the cloud, above the clod. The unknown God, the unknown God." 

In ]AfaBlng contrast to William Watson's Unknown God, to the God of Kudyard Kip- 
ling's lle(*i«ional : ** Gcxl of our fathers, known of old — Lord of our far-flung battle- 
]ii,i. _ iiemnith whose awful hand wc hold Dominion over palm and pine— Lord God of 
hosts, IKJ with us yet. \just we forget— lest we forget I The tumult and the shouting 
(lj(,g_Tlie captuins and the kings depart — Still stands thine ancient Sacrifice, An 
humble and a contrite heart. Lord God of hosts, be with us yet. Lest we forget — lest 
we forg<?t I Far-<-allfd our navies melt away — On dune and headland sinlLS the fire — 
• Bo, all our pomp of yestenlay Is one with Nineveh and Tyre I Judge of the nations, 
si>ar(3 us yet, I>«t we forget — lest we forget 1 If, drunk with sight of power, we loose 
Wild ti>ngues that have not thee in awe— Such boasting as the Gentiles use. Or lesser 
bn^ls without the I^w- Lord God of hosts, bo with us yet, I^t we forget— lest wo 
forget I For heathen heart that puts her trust In reeking tube and iron shard— All 
valiant dust that buil(te on dust. And gruarding calto not thee to guard— For frantio 
boast and f ooUsh word. Thy mercy on thy people. Lord ! " 

These problems of God's providential dealings are intelligible only when we consider 
that Christ to the revealcr of God, and that hto suffering for sin opens to us the heart of 
Go<l. All history to the progressive manifestation of Christ's holiness and love, and in 
the cross we have the key that unlocks the secret of the universe. With the cross in 
view, wo can believe that Love rules over all, and that "tU thingt vork tog«thtr for good to tkam 
8:28). 




PROOF OP THE DOCTRIKE OF PROYIDEKOE. 421 

n. Proof of the Doctrine of Proyidbngb. 
1. Scriptural Proof. 

The Scripture witnesses to 

A. A general providential government and control ( a ) over the nni- 
verse at large ; ( 6 ) over the physical world ; ( c ) over the brato creation ; 
(d) over the affairs of nations ; (e) over man's birth and lot in life ; 
(/) over the outward saccesses and failures of men's lives ;{g) over things 
seemingly accidental or insignificant ; ( A ) in the protection of the 
righteous ; ( « ) in the supply of the wants of God's people ;(J) in the 
arrangement of answers to prayer ; ( A; ) in the exposure and punishment 
of the wicked. 

(a) Pil(l3:19 — "Ui killed niMhonr all"; IteiL4:35— ''doethMoordiBgtohiswiniBtiwannyoflkMTai, 
iBd unoos th« inkabiluitf of the evth" ; Iph. 1 : 11 — " vorktth all thiogi afltr the eouml of hit vilL" 

( b ) Job 87 : 5, 10 — " God thundereth Bj the bnath of God ioe ii giToa" ; Pil 104 : H—^ouueth the gnii 

to grov fcr the eattla " ; 135:6, 7 — "Whatwerer JehoTah ploaied, that hath hodone^ InheaTenandin earth^intheseu 
and in alldeepi .... rtfrnt .... li^tnings .... ▼ind" ; lUt5:45 — "naJulhhisBantohw .... geadeth 
nin" ; Pi 104:16— "The trees of Jehorah are filled"-- are planted and tended by God as care- 
fully as those which come under human cultivation; c/. Mat6:30— "if God ao elotho the 
gnn of the field." 

(r) Pi.l04:21,28 — "Tonnglionaroar .... seek their food from God .... that thoagiTeit them thej gather" 
Iat6:28 — " birds of the hearen .... your hearenlj Pktiier feedeth them " ; 10: 29^ "two yarrows .... not one 
of them shall fall on the groond withoot joor Father." 

( d ) Job 12 : 23 — "le inareaaeth the nat<au, and he destroyeth them : He enlaigeth the nations, and he leadeth them 
oaptire": Pi 22 : 28 — " the kingdom is Jehovah's ; Ind he is the mler orer the nations " ; 66 : 7 — " le ruleth b j his 
might tar orer ; lis ejes obserre the nations ' ' ; lets 17 : 26 — " made of one ererj nation of men to dveil on all the laoe 
of tiie earth, haring determined their iq>pointed seasons, and the boonds of their habitatian " ( instance Palestine, 
Greece, England ). 

( e ) 1 8am. 16 : 1 — " fill thj horn vith oil, and go: I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite ; far I hare pro- 
lided me a king among his sons " ; Pi 139 : 16 — " Thine ejes did see mine onlbnned sabstance^ ind in thj book 
were all my members written " ; Ii 45 : 5 — " I will gird thee, though thoa hast not known me " ; Jer. 1 : 5 — " Before 
I fanned thee in the belly I knew thee .... sanctified thee .... appointed thee " ; Gal 1 : 15, 16 — " God, who 
sopanted me, eren from my mother's womb, and called me through his graoe^ to rereal his Son in me, that I might 
pweh him amocg the Gentilei" 

(/ ) Pi 75 : 6, 7— " neither tnm the east, nor from the west, Hor yet from the south oometh lifting up. But God is the 
jndge , He pntteth down one, and Ufteth up another " ; Lake 1 : 52 — "He hath put down prinoes frtm their thrones, 
And hath exalted them of low degree. " 

( g ) ProT. 16 : 33— "The lot is oast into the lap ; Bnt the whole disposing thereof is of JehoTah " ; Kai 10 : 80— "the 
Tory hairs of yonr head are all nombered." 

(h) Pi 4 : 8 — "In peace will I both lay me down and sleep ; For thoo, JehoTah, alone makest me dwell in safety" ; 
5 : 12 — " thou wilt eompass him with favor as with a shield " ; 63 : 8 — " Thy right hand apholdeth me " ; 121:3 — 
"He that keepeth thee will not slumber" ; Rom. 8 : 28— "to them that love God all things work together for good." 

( ( ) Gen. 22 : 8, 14 — " God will provide himself the lamb .... Jehovah-jireh " ( marg.: that Is, ' Jehovah will 
see^' or * provide ') ; Dent. 8: 3 — "man doth not live by bread only, but by every thing that prooeedeth out of the 
month of Jehovah doth man live " ; Phil 4 : 19 — " my God shall supply every need of youn" 

(i ) Pi 68 : 10 — "Thon, God, didst prepare of thy goodness for the poor " ; Ii 64 : 4 — " neither hath the eye seen 
a God besides thee, who worketh for him that waiteth far him " ; Mat. 6: 8 — "yoor Father knoweth what things ye 
have need d, before ye ask him "; 32, 33 — "all these things shall be added unto you." 

(h) Pi 7: 12, 13 — "Ifa man turn not, he will whet his sword; He hath bent his bow and made it ready ; He hath 
also prepared finr him the instniments of death; He maketh his arrows fiery shafts " ; 11 : 6 — " Upon the wioked he will 
rain snares ; Fire sad brimstone and boming wind shall be the portion of their cup." 

The statements of Scripture with regard to God's providence are strikingly con- 
firmed by recent studies in phjrsiogrnphy. In the early stages of human development 
man was almost wholly subject to nature, and environment was a determining factor 
In his progress. Thia is the element of truth In Buckle's view. But Buckle ignored the 
fact that, as clvilizution advanced, ideas, at least at times, played a greater part than 
environment. Th(?nnopyUr cannot bo explained by climate. In the later stages of 
human development, nature is largely subject to man, and environment counts for 
comparatively little. "There shall be no Alps I" says Napoleon. Charles Klngsley : 



422 THE WORKS OF GOD. 



*'Tbe fl^irit of anofeat tngedy was man oonqoered bj ctrcimwtanoft; the spirit of 
modem tnig«dj isman ooaquerin^ circumfltaiioe. ** Tet many natioiial <diaracteri8tios 
can be attributed to physioal 8arroiuiding8,and so far as this is the case thejr are due to 
the orderin^r of Ck)d*s providence. Man's need of fresh water leads him to rivers,^ 
heooe tlie orifirinal location of London. Oommeroe requires seaports, —hence New 
York. The need of defense leads man to btuflTsand bills, ~ hence Jerusalem, Athens, 
Rome, Edinburgh. These places of defense became also places of worship and of appeal 
to God. 

Goldwin Smith, in his Lectures and Bssays, maintains that national characterisUos 
are not congenital, but are the result of en\ironment« The greatness of Rome and 
the greatness of England have been due to position. The Romans owed their successes 
to being at first less warlike than their ncightK>rs. They were traders in the centre of 
the Italian scaooast, and had to depend on discipline to make headway against 
marauders on the surrounding hills. Only when drawn into forrign conquest did 
the ascendency of the military spirit become complete, and then the military spirit 
brought despotism as its natural penalty. Brought into contact with varied races, 
Rome was led to the founding of colonies. She adopted and assimilated the natiomi 
which she conquered, and io governing them learned organisation and law. Parcere 
wubjectis was her rule, as well as debeUare superixm. In a similiar manner Goldwin 
Smith maintains that the greatness of England is due to position. Britain being an 
island, only a bold and enterprising race could settle it. Maritime migration strength- 
ened freedom. Insular position gave freedom from invasion. Isolation however gave 
rise to arrogance and self-assertion. The island became a natural centre of commerce. 
There is a steadiness of political progress which would have been impossible upon the 
continent. Yet consolidation was tardy, owing to the fact that Great Britain consists 
of BevercU islands. Scotland was always liberal, and Ireland foredoomed to subjection. 

Isaac Taylor, Spirit of Hebrew Poetry, has a valuable chapter on Palestine as the 
providential theat re of divine revelat ion. A litt lo land, yet a sample-land of all lands, 
and a thoroughfare between the greatest lands of antiquity, it was fitted by God to 
receive and to communicate his truth. George Adam Smith's Historical Geography of 
the Holy Land is a repert<)r>' of information on this subject. Stanley, Life and Letters, 
1 : 209-271, treats of Greek landscape and history. Shaler. Interpretation of Nature, 
sees such difference between Gruek curiosity and search for causes on the one hand, 
and Roman indifference to scientific explanation of facts on the other, that he cannot 
think of the G reeks and the Romans as cognate peoples. He believes that Italy was first 
peopled by Etrurians, a Semitic race from Africa, and that from them the Romans 
descended. The Romans bad as little of the spirit of the naturalist as had the Hebrews. 
The Jews and the Romans originated and propagated Christianity, but they had no 
interest in science. 

On God's pre-arrangement of the physical conditions of national life, striking sug- 
gestions may be found in Shaler, Nature and Man in America. Instance the settlement 
of Massachusetts Bay between 1029 and 1639, the only decade in which such men as 
John Winthrop could be found and the only one in which they actually emigrated 
from England. After 1639 there was too much to do at home, and with Charles II the 
spirit which animated the Pilgrims no longer existed in England. The colonists 
builded better than they knew, for though they sought a place to worship God them- 
selves, they had no idea of giving this same religious liberty to others. R. £. Thompson, 
The Hand of God in American History, holds that the American Republic would 
long since have broken in pieces by its own weightand bulk, if the invention of steam- 
boat in 1807. railroad locomotive in 1829, telegraph in 1837, and telephone in 1877, had 
not bound the remote parts of the country together. A woman invented the reaper by 
combining the acti(m of a row of scissors in cutting. This was as early as 1835. Only 
in 1855 the competition on the Emperor's farm at Compline gave supremacy to the 
reaper. Without it farming would have been impossible during our oiWl war, when 
our men were !n the field and women and boys had to gather in the crops. 

B. A government and control extending to the free actions of men — 
( a) to men's free acts in general ; ( 6 ) to the sinful acts of men also. 

(a) lz.l2:36---"JehoTa]ig&T«thepeoplelkTor intltenghtofthal^Tptitiii^aotliAttlMj Mth^ 
asked, ind thflj dfl^oiled th« IgTptiuf" ; ISun. 24:18 — •'J«hoTa]i had deUrend me vp into thj bad (Saul to 
David ) ; Pa S3 : li 15— "He lookctk flgrtli Upon all the inhabitaata of the earth, He that fitahioneth the hearta of them 
rll^^Hlggm^aiy, one as well as another ) ; Pnr. 16 : 1 — "The plans of the heart belong to man ; Bat the 
ifrnMmh"; 19:21 — ^'Thm an naajderiois in a man's heart; Bat the oooasel of Jehovahb 




PROOF OF THE DOCTRINE OF PROVIDENCE, 423 

tliatiluIlgUiid" ; 20:24— "1 maa'sgtdngi are of JehoTah; lov than eaBmaanndaituidhisiraj?*' 21: 1— "Oa 
king's baart is in Um hand of Jekotah as tlie watarooonas: He tnneth it vkithsnoersr ke vill " ( i. e., as easily as 
the rivulets of the eastern fields are turned by the slightest motion of the hand or the 
foot of the husbandman ); Jar. 10 : 23 — "0 JahoTah, I knov that the iraj of man is not in himself; it is B0t 
in man that valketh to direot his steps " ; PhiL 2 : 13 — " it is God vho vorketh in joa both to vill and to vork. 
fir hisgood pleasoro " ; Iph. 2: 10 — " ve are his workmanship, ereated in Christ Jesns for good voria, vhidi God 
afiiroprepaxed that we should walk in them " ; James 4 : 13-15— "If the Lord will, ve shall both liTe» and do this or 
thai." 

(b)2Sam.l6:10— "beeanse Jehorak hath said onto him [Shimei]: Curse Ikiid'*; 24:1^** the anger of 
Jehorah wu kindled i^ainst Israel, and he mored Ikrid against them, sajing, Go, number Israel and Jndak" ; Kom. 
11 : 32 — "God hath shut up all unto disobedieooe, that he might hare mercj upon all " ; 2 Thess. 2 : 11, 12 — "God 
sendeth them a working of enxH-, that thej should beliere a lie : that thej all might be Judged who beliered not the 
truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." 

Henry Ward Beechor : ** There seems to be no order in the movements of the bees of 
a hive, but the honey-comb shows that there was a plan in them all. " John Hunter 
compared his own brain to a hive in which there was a g^reat deal of buzzing and 
apparent disorder, while yet a real order underlay it alL ** As bees grather their stores 
of sweets against a time of need, but are colonized by man's superior Intelligenoe for 
his own purposes, so men plan and work yet are overruled by infinite Wisdom for his 
own glory. ** Dr. Deems: ** The world is wide In Time and Tide, And God is guide: 
Then do not hurry. That man is blest Who does his best And leaves the rest : Then do 
not worry." See Bruce, Providential Order, 183 aq. ; Providence in the Individual 
Life, 231 aq. 

God*8 providence with respect to men's evH acts is described in Scripture 
as of four sorts : 

(a) Preventive, — God by his providence prevents sin which wonld 
otherwise be committed. That he thus prevents sin is to be regarded as 
matter, not of oblig£.aon, but of grace. 

Gen. 20 : 6 — Of Abimelcch : "I also withheld thee from sinning against me" ; 31 : 24— "ind God eame to 
laban the Sjrian in a dream of the night, and said unto him, Take heed to thjwlf that thou speak not to Jaoob either 
good or bad " ; Psalm 19 : 13 — " Keep back thj serrant also from presumptuous sins ; Let them not hare dominion orer 
me " ; Eosea 2:6 — " Behold, I will hedge up thy way with thorns, and I will build a wail against her, that she shall 
not find her paths" — here the "thorns " and the " wall " may represent the restraints and suffer- 
ings by which God mercifully checks the fatal pursuit of sin ( see Annotated Par. Bible 
in loco ). Parents, government, church, traditions, customs, laws, age, disease, death, 
are all of them preventive influences. Man sometimes finds himself on the brink of 
a precipice of sin, and strong temptation hurries him on to make the fatal leap. Sud- 
denly every nerve relaxes, all desire for the evil thing is gone, and he recoils from the 
fearful brink over which he was Just now going to plunge. God has interfered by the 
voice of conscience and the Spirit. This too is a part of his preventive providence. 
Men at sixty years of age are eight times less likely to commit crime than at the age of 
twenty-five. Passion has subsided ; fear of punishment has increased. The manager 
of a great department store, when asked what could prevent its absorbing all the 
trade of the city, replied : ** Death I " Death certainly limits aggregations of property, 
and so constitutes a means of God's preventive providence. In the life of John G. 
Paton, the rain sent by God prevented the natives from murdering him and taking his 
goods. 

(b) Permissive, — God permits men to cherish and to manifest the evil 

dispositions of their hearts. God's permissive providence is simply the 

negative act of withholding impediments from the path of the sinner, 

instead of preventing his sin by the exercise of divine power. It implies 

no ignorance, passivity, or indulgence, but consists with hatred of the sin 

and determination to punish it 

2 Chron. 32 : 31 — " God left him [ Hczekiah ], to try him, that he might know all that was in his heart " ; cf, 
Deut. 8:2 — " that he might humble thee, to prore thee, to know what was in thine heart" Ps. 17 : 13, 14 — " BeliTsr 
my soul from the wicked, who is thy sword, from men who are thy hand, Jehovah " ; Ps. 81 : 12, 13 — " So I let them 
go after the stubbornness of their heart, that they might walk in their own counsals. Oh that my people would hearken 
nntomer' Is. 53: 4, ^0~ "Surely he hath borne our griefo. ... let it pleased Jehorah to braise him." IossaI 



4M TSE WOBE} Om <sODl 




'. I 

•If 

<ln*iur 

imiBlwr faraftt has in r 'fcH. fi 

in ch^iK oasM. hi > i w. i gi. amy te*llmea^» is 

T^nnyvuBv T!ii( Hliriiar PiukRiBn r "^f^i^i at Ivr. ay cbe wtm -^O f-^at. 
mir>l4!^ P'-.r if li« ehnnrier by farv clw cboaitKr i> j«c in* vmuv.'* 
Xitchfvt ^f ft«v*teclna. it — " T!i« deir cpaacyiB of 49*Mr4 «dluKm7 CrtHii i^m1'» 
atMlv^ iM« was naerv«rt 6a a laser •fay. AH wuhMrii was in. thi^ * >bl TeicuntHis 
itp«'»n r.h«» o w^ '^ Ji f u p^kwer 'if Gort.** Cofer^d«e. in itia Cnnfrinna of an lat^axrinir 
^nr. jkokt It, I9^mk» of "^dK bmhit^ onivermi vtdi cte EEp*bcw •iiM.-Ci.rs^ -jf rvAsrinr 
ail fiiXiViHtnt or «z£mw*llnar7 ehiii«i to tke fscas fine Caoav* wtciitmc im»ncun<7f the 
pmxUnafie Aid IiMQrnswaEai eanaea— ssrikniv OlnstzaEiiMi of wTtub nair ^ f^iund by 
e»Mnp«rtnir ^i><ft nnnsctr^ <if cue aoaeeresfii tat die ftnims moA in die lUKonoii b<]oft&. 
, , . Th«% 'finoiuscina bet i wm the providentiai sid die mzracniioua <llil sue •"nonr intt> 
th#!ir f/vma of *>«^'^'*^ — as any lasei. ooctaiSi^ their git>te>?f oocrri«yanrtaiexrGhoai:hBL** 
Th^ w^.man w1h> hart been ilaniierprf rdseiled vhen toiil cha.c ki^id had ptsrautseii is for 
h«v iT'^'d : Ate flutfntainnfl thas jaau. had taiqpiceii her afcnaer : she aevOBil fio lesrm 
tlutc ^«<yt hail p er mtt aaf the work of jatan. 

r '^ > Ihr^etrve, — God dxreets the eTiI acts of nusu to emL» a3i«jc«se«i sod 

nrdntk^dfA by tbe mf^entA, Wben eTiL is in the heart ;kzid will e^rtKnbr 

er>me ont, God orders ita flow ia one diicctioa rash-fr than in snother, ao 

Shut ttA er^Txiae eaa be bent ajntrolled and lewt hum. umj resah^ This is 

sotnetimea called oy^tmling^ proTidence. 

Vw.)i| M^'«lrjqi.7>inMC<vai9BB«ni: » M aan^ hr fiii a ^=ar » ?Hk a it a da ^j, » 
«Nt »(* ywBM aUtu '. H?l:ai — "Aft «zith4f Sanaa BB:hn: ^^Tmimd-wsukmaiiThm^^i^m 
(bn ' pni on tA an orzuoKot — efa>Che tr: jatlf with it f or thixte own ^I<>rT : k. a : S—'b 
Mif!^n.:lM:nilifaiataa4pr.«iteaiitfaT^» mm a axai i a i'f mi m ' -. :ac2:3 : r~ *¥te-dn.ten» 
'III ^OMki/ ' — <V« ;n a p«rtLculnr way wfant is accoally bexiv ^joe W«tec4.>?ct« BtK Cool, 
im Ui^y, : Utm4:Z: a~" afnaiK ikf Mj9anmt:ma>, vvnikK cea aaati 'Ma ini 
vi* :k« VmtUia «i te ynpta rf IIbmL wbi grtwri - ii ^ i ih a , a ^ ilaiaiiiB ft? aua aoi ftj< 

T^ chia heart of <ttmetiYe providence Aonid pn>linbly be r«fnrred the 
iv4r»rrt r^« P)iarar«binBi.4:2l''Ivii:aBiakBlM^adhivii:Bn >tte?«u{i -;T:13~-^ 
n0iiriiia«rtw»rt«Mi ; %:a— *» a«H ni < iaMwt '~L<-^Pbifcni»t>hhanieneslh»own 
fU^*i '•im nr>nf.rolUn« agency f^t G<jd did not interfere with the li^erty of Pbanoh or 
OMiflT^ nim to Am ; tiiat In jud^rnKnt for hJi prerioos craelt j and impiety God witbdrew* 
th^ ^xK^TiMl i^fltrainta which bed hitberto kept his sin within boundts. and placed him 
in /^f o.mnriWK^ii which wjuid hnre tnfiuenccd to ri^t mctioa a weU-dispceed mind, but 
whir.h ^^/l tftVPMiW w/^H3id knd a dispcaition like Pbanoh*s to the peculiar course of 
wi/;k^ne«ii whirh he actoaHy punned. 

fpr/i ^M^r^lf'ntfX Fharar^'fl heart, then, lint, by permitting him to harden his own heart, 
f#od ri^intr the autbr^r of his sin rtiilj ia the sense that he is the auttior of a free texny who 
la hirrwv-.if the Air*sni anthor of hit sin : secondly, by giTincr to him the mt>ans of enli^rht- 
enm^^t. yn^nu^h'n rerj opportnnitica bc-incr perrerted by him into occasions of more 
rlniient wick^^nem, and sof>rl realsted being* thus made to result in crrvater ov il : thirdly, 
r^ rtniniMllT U/n^kintf Pharaoh, when it became manifest that be woukl not do God's 
wiiK ifeod thnu makin«r It morally certain, though not neceseary, that he WiHild do evU : 
and toMrf.Mf, by «o directing Pharaoh's surroundings that his sin would manifest itself 
In '/ne way r^th^tr than in anr^tber. Sin is like thelara of the volcani\ which will cer- 
tainly c^/Trie OTit, \rttt which 0<jd directs in its course down the mountain-side so that it 
will ^f Unud harm. The in^vitation downward is due to man^ evil will ; the din.x*tion 
Uf thlM nkUi tn tf> that is due to God's providence. See koa. f : 17. IS ~ ** For tks nrr parwM 4ii 
I mmtkm «^. 4«( I aifkt ikow ia tM» aj ^vw, ad Uat nj bib} ai^ b« pabUsh«l abroid ia ftll U««itL St 

j^^Mkmmtf m whan U sill, ad vkn W sin W kriantk" Thus the very passions which 

"I 




PROOF OF THB DOCTBINE OF PROVIDENCE. 425 

ezdte men to rebel against Ood are made completely subservient to his purposes; 
see Annotated Paragraph Bible, on Pi 78 : 10. 

Ood hardens Pharaoh's heart only after all the earlier plagues have been sent. Phar- 
aoh had hardened his own heart before. God hardens no man's heart who has not first 
hardened it himself. Crane, Religion of To-morrow, 140— ** Jehovah is never said to 
harden the heart of a good man, or of one who is set to do righteousness. It is alwajrs 
those who are bent on evil whom Ood hardens. Pharaoh hardens bis own heart beioro 
the Lord is said to harden it. Nature is Ood, and it is the nature of human beings to 
harden when they resist softening influences." The Watchman, Dec. 6, 1901 : 11 — ** God 
decreed to Pharaoh what Pharaoh had chosen for himself. Persistence in certain incli- 
nations and volitions awakens within the body and soul forces which are not under the 
control of the will, and which drive the man on in the way he has chosen. After a 
time nature hardens the hearts of men to do evlL*' 

(d) Determinatiye, — God determines the bonnds reached by the evil 
passions of his creatures, and the measure of their effecta Since moral 
evil is a germ capable of indefinite escpansion, God's determining the 
measure of its growth does not alter its character or involve God's com- 
plicity with the perverse wills which cherish it. 

Job 1 : 12— " ind JehoTah aid onto Satan, Bak^ all that 1m ha& it in thj powtr ; onlj upon Umaolf pat not ftirlk 
thy hand"; 2 : 6— "Behold, he is in thy hand; only ipare his lift " ; P8.124 :2 — **!/ it had not boon Jehorah vho 
vu on our aidi, i^on man roM up against ns ; Than had thej swallovod ns np aliro " ; i Cor. iO : 13 — " will not snffnr 
yon to bo tompted aboto that yo are able ; bat will with the temptation make also the vay of eaeape, that ye may be able 
to endare it " ; 2 Thasi. 2 : 7 — " 7ar the mystery of lavlemass doth already voric ; ody there is one that mtraineth 
nov, until he be taken oat of the vay" ; Ber. 20 : 2; 3 — " Ind he laid hold on the dxagon, the old saipent, vhich is the 
Denl and Satan, and boand him finr a thonsand years." 

Pepper, Outlines of Sj-st. TheoL, 76— The union of Ckxl's will and man's will is ** such 
that, whUe in one view all can be ascribed to God, in another all can bo ascribed to the 
creature. But how Ood and the creature are united in operation is doubtless known 
and knowable only to God. A very dim analogry is furnished in the union of the soul 
and body in men. The hand retains its own physical laws, yet is obedient to the human 
wilL This theory recognizes the veracity of consciousness in its witness to personul 
freedom, and yet the completeness of God's control of both the bad and the erood. Free 
beingrs are ruled, but are ruled ns free and in their freedom. The freedom is not sacri- 
ficed to the control. The two coexist, each in its integrity. Any doctrine which does 
not allow this is false to Scripture and destructive of reli^on.*^ 

2. Rational proof, 

A. Arguments a priori from the divine attributes. ( a ) From the 
immntabihty of God. This makes it certftin that he will execute his eter- 
nal plan of the universe and its history. But the execution of this plan 
involves not only creation and preservation, but also providence. ( 6 ) From 
the benevolence of God. This renders it certain that he will care for the 
intelligent universe he has created. "What it was worth his while to create, 
it is worth his while to care for. But this care is providence. ( c ) From 
the justice of God. As the source of moral law, God must assure the vin- 
dication of law by administering justice in the universe and punishing 
the rebellious. But this administration of justice is providence* 

For heathen ideas of providence, see Cicero, De Natura Deorum, 11 : 30, where Bal- 
bus speaks of the existence of the grods as that, ** quo concesso, confitendum est eorum 
consilio mundum administrari." Epictetus, sec. 41 — *' The principal and most important 
duty in relig^ion is to possess your mind with just and becomingr notions of the gtxls — to 
believe that there are such supreme beings, and that they irovem and dispose of all the 
affairs of the world with a Just and ^ood providence." Marcus Antoninus : ** If there 
are no gods, or if they have no regard for human affairs, why should I desire to live in 
a world without gods and without a providence ? But go<ls undoubtedly there arc, and 
they rejmrd human affairs." See also Bib. Sac, 16 : 374. As we shall see, however, many 
Of the heathen writers believed In a general, rather than in a particular, providence. 



426 THE WORKS OF GOD. 

On the arflrument for providence derived from Ood's benevolence, see Appleton, 
Works. 1 : 146—** Is indolence more consistent with Ood's majesty tlian action would be? 
Ttie happiness of creatures is a erood. Does it honor Ood to say that he is indifferent to 
that which he knows to be firood and valuable ? Even if the world had come into exist- 
ence without his agency, it would become God*s moral character to pay some attention 
to creatures so numerous and so susceptible to pleasure and pain, especially when he 
might have so great and favorable an influence on their moral condition.** John 5: 17 • 
** Mj Ftttiar vorktth aten until nov, ind I vork " — is as applicable to providence as to preservation. 

The complexity of God's providential arrangements may be illustrated by Tyndall's 
explanation of the fact that heartsease does not grow in the neighborhood of English 
villages : L In English villages dogs run loose. 2. Where dogs run loose, cats must 
stay at home. 8. Where cats stay at home, field mice abound. 4. Where field mice 
abound, the nests of bumble-bees are destroyed. 5. Where bumble-bees' nests are 
destroyed, there is no fertilization of pollen. Therefore, where dogs go loose, no hearts- 
ease grows. 

B. Arguments a posteriori from the facts of nature and of history. 
( a ) The outward lot of individuals and nations is not wholly in their own 
hands, but is in many acknowledged respects subject to the disposal of a 
higher power. ( 6 ) The observed moral order of the world, although 
imperfect, cannot be accounted for without recognition of a divine provi- 
dence. Vice is discouraged and virtue rewarded, in ways which are beyond 
the power of mere nature. There must be a governing mind and will, and 
this mind and will must be the mind and will of God. 

The birthplace of Individuals and of nations, the natural powers with which they are 
endowed, the opportunities and immunities they enjoy, are beyond their own controL 
A man's destiny for time and for eternity may be practically decided for him by his 
birth in a Christian home, rather than in a tenement-house at the Five Points, or in a 
kraal of the Hottentots. Progress largely depends upon " variety of environment ** 
( II. Spencer ). But this variety of environment is in groat part independent of our own 
efforts. 

** There *s a Divinity that shapes our ends, Rough hew them how we will.'* Shakes- 
peare here expounds human consciousness. **Man proposes and God disposes '^ has 
become a proverb. Experience teaches that success and failure are not wholly due to 
us. Men often labor and lose ; they consult and nothing ensues ; they *' embattle and 
are broken." Providence is not always on the side of the heaviest batallions. Not arms 
but ideas have decided the fate of the world — as Xerxes found at Thermopylae, and 
Napoleon at Waterloo. Great movements are generally begun without consciousness 
of their greatness. C/. la. 42 : 16 — " I will bring the blind by a way that they know not "; 1 Cor. 5 : 37, 38 
— "thou sovest ... a bare gnin ... but God gireth it a body even as it pletsed him." 

The deed returns to the doer, and character shai^es destiny. This is true in the long 
run. Eternity will show the truth of the maxim. But here in time a sullicient number 
of apparent exceptions are permitted to render possible a moral probation. If evil 
were always immediately followe<l by i)enalty, righteousness would have a compelling 
power upon the will and the highest virtue would be impossible. Job's friends accuse 
Job of acting upon this principle. The Hebrew children deny its truth, when they say : 
" But if not " —even if God does not deliver us — " ve will not senre thy gods, nor wonhip th« golden 
image which thou hast set up " ( Dan. 3 : 18 ). 

Martineau.Seatof Authority, 298 — "Through some misdirection or infirmity, most 
of the larger agencies in history have failed to reach their own ideal, yet have accom- 
plished revolutions greater and more beneficent; the conquests of Alexander, the 
empire of Rome, the Crusades, the ecclesiastical persecutions, the monastic asceti- 
cisms, the missionary zeal of Christendom, have all played a momentous part in the 
drama of the world, yet a part which is a surprise to each. All this shows the control- 
ling presence of a Reason and a Will transcendent and divine." Kidd, Social Evolution, 
90, declares that the progress of the race has taken place only under conditions which 
have had no sanction from the reason of the great proportion of the individuals who 
submit to them. He concludes that a rational religion is a scientific impossibility, and 
that the function of religion is to provide a super-rational sanction for social progress. 
We prefer to say that Providence pushes the race forward even against its will. 

James Russell Lowell, Letters. 2 : 51, suggests that God's calm control of the forces 



THEORIES OPPOSIKG THE DOGTBIKE OF PROYIDEKOE. 427 

of the universe, both physical and mental, should give us confidence when* evil 
seems impending : ** How many times have I seen the fire-engines of church and state 
dangingand lumbering along to put out — a false alarm I And when the heavens 
are cloudy, what a glare can bo cast by a burning shanty I *' See Sermon on Provi- 
dence in Political Revolutions, in Farrar's Science and Theology, 228. On the moral 
order of the world, notwithstanding it« imperfections, see Butler, Analogy, Bohn's 
ed., 98 ; King, in Baptist Review, 1884 : 200-222. 

TTT. Theories opposiNa the Dootbinb of Pboyidenge. 

1. Fatalism* 

Fatalism maintains the certainty, but denies the freedom, of human self- 
determination, — thus substitating fate for providence. 

To this view we object that ( a ) it contradicts consciousness, which testi- 
fies that we are free ; ( 6 ) it exalts the divine power at the expense of 
God's truth, wisdom, holiness, love ; ( c ) it destroys aU evidence of the 
personality and freedom of God ; (d) it practically makes necessity the 
only Gk>d, and leaves the imperatives of our moral nature without present 
validity or future vindication. 

The Mohammedans have frequently been called fatalists, and the practical effect of 
the teachings of the Koran upon the masses is to make them so. The ordinary Moham- 
medan will have no physician or medicine, because everything happens as Ood has 
before appointed. Smith, however, in his Mohammed and Mohammedanism, denies 
that fatalism is essential to the system. Idam — ** submission," and the participle Ifos- 
lem—*' submitted," i. t,, to God. Turkish proverb: ** A man cannot escape what is 
written on his forehead.*' The Mohammedan thinks of God*s dominant attribute as 
being greatness rather than righteousness, power rather than purity. God is the per- 
sonification of arbitrary will, not the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. But 
there is in the system an absence of sacerdotalism, a Jealousy for the honor of Gk)d, a 
brotherhood of believers, a reverence for what is considered the word of God, and a 
bold and habitual devotion of its adherents to their faith. 

Stanley, Life and Letters, 1 : 480, refers to the Mussulman tradition existing in EgTPt 
that the fate of Islam requires that it should at last be superseded by Christianity. 
F. W. Sanders '* denies that the Koran is peculiarly seneuoL The Christian and Jewish 
religions," he sayB, **have their paradise also. The Koran makes this the reward, but 
not the ideal, of conduct ; * Grace from thy Lord — that is the grand bliss.* The empha- 
sis of the Koran is upon right living. The Koran does not teach the propagation of 
religion by force. It declares that there shall be no compulsion in religion. The prac- 
tice of converting by the sword is to be distinguished from the teaching of Mohammed, 
just as the Inquisition and the slave-trade in Christendom do not prove that Jesus taught 
them. The Koran did not institute polygamy. It found unlimited polygamy, divorce, 
and Infanticide. Th(? last it prohibited ; the two former it restricted and ameliorated, 
just as Moses found polygamy, but brought it within bounds. The Koran is not hostile 
to secular leamiHg. Learning flourished under the Bagdad and Spanish Caliphates. 
When Moslems oppose learning, they do so without authority from the Koran. The 
Roman Catholic church has opposed schools, but we do not attribute this to the gospel." 
See Zwcmer, Moslem Doctrine of God. 

Calvinists can assert freedom, since man^s will finds its highest freedom only in sub- 
mission to God. Islam also cultivates submission, but it is the submission not of love 
but of fear. The essential difference between Mohammedanism and Christianity is 
found in the revelation which the latter gives of the love of God in Christ— a revelation 
which secures from free moral agents the submission of love ; see page 186. On fatalism, 
see McCosh, Intuitions, S966 ; Kant, Metaphysic of Ethics, S2-74, 93-108; Mill, Autobiog- 
raphy, 168-170, and System of Logic, 621-526; Hamilton, Metaphysics, 692; Stewart, 
Active and Moral Powers of Man, ed. Walker, 268-324. 

2. Casualtam, 

Gasualism transfers the freedom of mind to nature, as fatalism transfers 
the fixity of nature to mind. It thus exchanges providence for chance. 




brai tint pcoride] 
for pazii»:4B» lieyioi oar kzKyvkdge. 






aad do vA need to trouble 




■r/: •Aa»xJ( Ck^ : r«( Dr. AraoU's Mj^iv tbax enery ackooi ^^^ fbrfui f«t on his 
Urn Vi^ f i^Mj.mtA with a h«fc OKtval fwrpcat. smbb» sicctid. Tben- as a ccrtaia 
pjr *>^ pwjr <^ artitnrti>na. We mott doc adct ocnefrxs or tttf- cfecivk of God try 
m^i vjy*jr4r * Wart—e ywiactaii him ■ in ■ingtMr. Ltfevtoofterc tode^atFtheqiie*- 
tw>ik «iku»«k ^Ib'A v« AftH pot fja tkrtL, ** Ixrre G<A mad ^ vbftt jxm witL" mid Jkiiffn»- 
tfcM;; Tjunn M. fy/r^ GM. «zyi act ^jot thai Iot« in a ^zs.^-it anl namral vaF- B^ tree in 
j'^v tKrtVft, j<£ bfc a^waiY oo the watck for u»>2icatirtaB of GoiTs «ilL 

( h ) li didinee be tttken in tbe sense of otter absence of all chubI eon- 
t^^ifXM in tb« ^^teDOBaetOL of matter and mind, — ve oppose to this notion 
tl'>t £k^ tLattlM: enual jndgment is formed in acei^rdanoe with a fond*- 
Ut^Aid mtA i ^j ' jjmmr r lav of human thooght, and that no science or knowl* 
» {ffmStAh witfacffit the asBomption of its TididitT. 



Ia >«« 31 : K '^«ir SarfM- taj«: "It doa a meaix jnm wm fvxr 4r«a %m 
**fXM^*: 'M wAm^mam:^ Utt a cr^Dci4»Me of caaan.** Bowne, TbeoiT of Tbou^t and 
|Ciu'.^»^>»{#t^]dC'**Brekam%iaiir>t meant lack of canaation, but thecoincidmoe inan 
<«:•>*«« '>f m*tifmttr UtAn^^xtAtsiA ftn^tat of caoaatioo. Thus the unpurpoaed meeting of 
%"•*, *^t w i9 m At cf^Hk^n ^yf a* a chance one, when the m ot enient of neither implin that 
*A U^ '^Umt^ ff^ tb^ aotltfacafa of chance is porpose.** 

i^.) M thm$t:h \0i xunfA in the sense of nndfrigning caose, — it is eri- 
A^ifif itmnfli^si^A to crzplain the regular and uniform sequences of nature, 
//f t^i^ n^/ral pT'/tfP'i^ <^ the human race. These things argue a superin- 
UftAtf^if, m»4 «Mi40ihi9^ mind — in other words, a providence. Since leason 
A^tt^ttfU, ttiA tn$\y a nuv^'.^ 1/nt a sufficient cause, for the order of the phj 
f^ ar^l //#//f aJ w//H/]y oamialism must be ruled out 



7iM 'i^4^tf'9*^ Mi thff itttnmi wtMlUm was asked what was the climate of Bocinster. 
**f^.*Mt*^ * " h^ f*^Wi ; " %Uttz\t09iAMr hm no climate, — onJjr weather! ** So Chaunoej 
yfrf^[^ tf^^w^ '/f f'lM 9t%^ mn^ d//wns tjt human affairs as simply ^coamical weather.** 
f^ff *rtf 'ff^ui^Um '/f 4Miiirn '^^fnp«rls us to see miod and purpoee io indi\-idual and 
fm*k^^* ff^^ffi* m wfU as in thti phyHkad unirerse. Tbe nune ariniment which proves 
«^ A/i00A0f^0i //f i^/l i^/v«m mimt tlae existence of a pre lidence. See Esnar, Life of 

>,. *nt^//ry of a fn/',T*ly (fm^al f^rf/vidence. 

yitt¥^Y w^^/ a/?le/i//irW]f<f (hpiVn c/ntrol over the movements of planets 
^^} U,4. ^U^i^iuU'n //f uniu/un ih;uy any olivine arraugement of particular 
^f^tf^m 14 ^M *A i\kH §irt(tutttruiH t»4(Aiuifi fleism are equally valid against the 
Mf^'// / '/f M I9t*vf»\y ytmi^rnX jfriftlhiutni. Tliis view is indeed only a form of 
/|^ rf^ff, wVf^'U \to\iU Uiai (i'n\ ban n//t wholly withdrawn himself from the 
a^fhrnm^ lf*ii Uati hUt m^viiy within it is limited to the maintenance of 




THEORIES OPPOSING THE DOCTRIKB OF PROVTDENOB. 429 

This appears to have beon the view of most of the heathen philosophers. Cicero : 
^MsLgna. dii curunt ; parva negUgnnt.** *' Even in kingdoms among men,'* he says, 
** kings do not trouble themselves with insignificant affairs." Fullerton, Conceptions 
of the Infinite, 9 — ** Plutarch thought there could not be an infinity of worlds, — Provi- 
dence could not possibly take charge of so many. * Troublesome and boundless infinity * 
could be grasped by no consciousness.** The ancient Cretans made an image of 
Jove without ears, for they said : ** It is a shame to believe that God would hear the 
talk of men.*' So Jerome, the church Father, thought it absurd that God should know 
just how many gnats and cockroaches there were in the world. David Harum is wiser 
when he expresses the belief that there is nothing wholly bad or useless in the world : 
** A reasonable amount of fleas is good for a dog, — they keep him from broodin' on 
bein' a dog.** This has been paraphrased : ** A reasonable number of beaux are good 
for a girl, — they keep her from brooding over her being a girl." 

In addition to the arguments above alluded to, we may urge against this 
theory that : 

( a ) General control over the course of nature and of history is impossi- 
ble without control over the smallest particulars which affect the course of 
nature and of history. Incidents so slight as well-nigh to escape observa- 
tion at the time of tiieir occurrence are frequently found to determine the 
whole future of a human life, and through that life the fortunes of a whole 
empire and of a whole age. 

** Nothing great has great beginnings.'* ** Take care of the pence, and the pounds wiU 
take care of themselves." *^ Care for the chain is care for the links of the chain." 
Instances in point are the sleeplessness of King Ahasuerus ( IsUwr 6:1), and the seeming 
chance that led to the reading of the record of Mordecai*s service and to the salvation 
of the Jews in Persia ; the spider's web spun across the entrance to the cave in which 
Mohammed had taken refuge, which so deceived his pursuers that they passed on 
in a bootless chase, leaving to the world the religion and the empire of the Moslems ; 
the preaching of Peter the Hermit, which occasioned the first Crusade ; the chance shot 
of an archer, which pierced the right eye of Harold, the last of the purely English kings, 
gained the battle of Hastings for William the Conqueror, and secured the throne of 
England for the Normans ; the flight of pigeons to the south-west, which changed the 
course of Columbus, hitherto directed towards Virginia, to the West Indies, and so 
prevented the dominion of Spain over North America ; the storm that dispersed the 
Spanish Armada and saved England from the Papacy, and the storm that dispersed 
the French fleet gathered for the conquest of New England — the latter on a day of 
fasting and prayer appointed by the Puritans to avert the calamity ; the settling of 
New England by the Puritans, rather than by French Jesuits ; the order of Council 
restraining Cromwell and his friends from sailing to America ; Major Andre's lack of 
self-possession in presence of his captors, which led him to ask an improper question 
instead of showing his passport, and which saved the American cause ; the unusually 
early commencement of cold weather, which frustrated the plans of Napoleon and 
destroyed his army in Russia; the fatal shot at Fort Sumter, which precipitated the 
war of secession and resulted in the abolition of American slavery. Nature is linked to 
history ; the breeze warps the course of the bullet ; the worm perforates the plank of 
the ship. God must care for the least, or he cannot care for the greatest. 

** Large doors swing on small hinges." The barking of a dog determined F, W. 
Robertson to be a preacher rather than a soldier. Robert Browning, Mr. Sludge the 
Medium : *' We find great things are made of little things. And little things go lessen- 
ing till at last Comes God behind them.'* R G. Robinson : *' We cannot suppose only a 
general outline to have been in the mind of God, while the filling-up is left to be done 
in some other way. The general includes the speciaL'* Dr. Lloyd, one of the Oxford 
Professors, said to Pusey, ** I wish you would learn something about those German 
joritics." " In the obe^lient spirit of those times," writes Pusey, " fset myself at once 
to learn German, and I went to Qiittingen, to study at once the language and the 
theology. My life turned on that hint of Dr. Lloyd's." 

Goldwin Smith : ** Had a bullet entered the brain of Cromwell or of William III in his 
first battle, or had Gustavus not fallen at Ltltzen, the course of history apparently 
would have been changed. The course even of science would have been changed, if 
there bad not been a Newton and a Darwin." The annexation of Oorsloa to France 



43) THE WOKKS OF GODu 



tnv*T Xf, Ftmace a ympnAena, and u> Borope a conq u er o r. Uiitiwii, Seat of AntlKvitj, 
{41 — ~ Haid the RKJiMffteTX ai Erfmt defKited anotter thmn joong Lntker on to cgrand 
u* iKunmof^ Hfmi0^ fjir hml Vbo X sent a kaa •ca nrt a lcwi agtnt tkan Tecaei oo kiB bosl- 
w^i to G^rnnaaj', the Sbeds of the BefomatioB Kiirte kave fkOen bj the waj^ide where 
tbfry bad no deepacas of earth, and the Western rerolt of the hmMU miod might have 
talum another date and another form." See Apptetoo, Works. IrUiiQ.; Leckj, &iir- 
kuod in the EHi^fateenth Ceotmy, chap. L 

( 6 ) The lore of God which prompts a genenl esie for the nmrene must 
also prompt a particular care for the smallest erents which affect the happi- 
ness of his creatures. It belongs to love to regard nothing as trifling or 
beneath its notice which has to do with the interests of the object of its 
aflection* Infinite love may therefcnre be expected to |»x)Tide for all, even 
the minntest things in the creation. Without belief in this particalar care, 
men cannot long believe in God*s general care. Faith in a particnlar provi- 
dence is indispensable to the very existence of practical religion ; for men 
will not worship or recognize a God who has no direct relation to them. 

Man's care for his own bodj involves care for the least important members of it. A 
lover's devotion is known by bis interest in the minutest coocems of his beloved. 
8o all our affairs are mattera of interest to God. Pope's Essay on Man : ** All nature is 
but art unknown to thee ; All chance^ direction whi<^ thou canst not see; All discord, 
harmony not understood ; All partial evil, unlverad grood.** If harvests may be labored 
for and lost without any agency of God ; if rain or sun may a<^ like fate, sweeping 
away the results of years, and God have no hand in it all ; if wind and storm may wreck 
the ship and drown our dearest friends, and God not care for us or for our loss, then all 
pomfbility of general trust in God will disappear also. 

God's care is shown in the least things as well as in the gre at es t . In Gethsemane 
Christ says: " Let tkw go tkeir vay : tkaltk* vwd aigkl be MUM vkick ke sptka, Of tkw vtea tkoa ktfi 
giraa me Iliat Bot one" ( Joki 18 : 8, 9 ). It is the same spirit as that of his intercessory prayer: 
*'lKiurdedtkm,udBotoiMartkeaparuhaibattketoaorpwditm'*(itkBl7:12 Christ gives himself 
as a prisoner that his disciples may go free, even as he redeems us from the curse of the 
law by iK'ing made a curse for us ( G«l. 3: 13 ). The dewdrop is moulded by the same law 
that rounds the planets into spheres. Gen. Grant said he had never but once sought a 
place for himself, and in that place he whs a comparative failure; he had been an 
inntrument in God's hand for the accomplishing of God's purposes, apart from any 
plan or thought or hope of his own. 

Of his Journey through the dark continent in search of David Livingston, Henry M. 
Stanley wrote in Scribner's Monthly for June, 1890 : ^ Constrained at the darkest hour 
humbly to confess that without God's help I was helpless, I vowed a vow in the forest 
solitudes that I would confess his aid before men. Silence as of death was around me ; 
it waij midnight ; I was weakened by illness, prostrated with fatigue, and wan with 
anxiety for my white and black companions, whose fate was a mystery. In this physi- 
cul and mental distress I besought God to give me back my people. Nine hours later 
w(j were exulting with a rapturous Joy. In full view of all was the crimson flag- with 

t)i<f cri'Hcent, and beneath its waving folds was the long-lost rear column My 

own designs were frustrated constantly by unhappy circumstances. I endeavored to 
nXAHiv my course as direct as possible, but there was an unaccountable influence at the 

helm I have been conscious that the issues of every effort were In other hands. 

. . . . Divinity seems to have hedged us while we Journeyed, impelling us whither it 
would, effecting its own will, but constantly guiding and protecting us.'* He refuses 
Uy Ix'llevu that it is all the result of * luck ', and he closes with a doxology which we 
should expect from Livingston but not from him : ** Thanks bo to God, forever and 
over I " 

( o ) In times of personal danger, and in remarkable conjanctores of pub- 
lic ftffairH, men instinctively attribute to God a control of the events which 
take ])luco around them. The prayers which such startling emergencies 
force from mon*8 lips are proof that God is present and active in human 
oiTiiirH. This testimony of our mental constitution must be regarded as 
▼irtuoUy the testimony of him who framed this oonstitatioiL 



RELATIONS OF THB DOCTRIKE OP PROVIDENCE. 431 

No advance of sclenoo can rid us of this conviction, since it comes from a deeper 
source than mere reasoninfir- The intuition of design is awakened by the connection of 
events in our daily life, as much as by the useful adaptations which we see in nature. 

Pb. 107 : 2S^28 — " Thtj Uut go dovn to th« mi in ships mount ap to tbio heaTsns, tlioj go doirn again to the 

i^ths .... And an at thair wits' and. Then they erj onto Jehovah in their trouble." A narrow escape 
from death shows us a present Ood and Deliverer. Instance the general feeling 
throughout the land, expressed by the press as well as by the pulpit, at the brealcing 
out of our rebeUion and at the President's subsequent Proclamation of Emancipation. 

** Est deus in nobis ; agitante calescimus illo." For contrast between Nansen's ignoring 
of God in his polar Journey and Dr. Jacob Chamberlain's calling upon Ood in his strait 
In India, see Missionary Review, May, 1888. Sunday School Times, March 4, 1893 — ** Ben- 
jamin Franklin became a deist at the age of fifteen. Before the Revolutionary War 
he was merely a shrewd and pushing business man. He had public spirit, and he made 
one happy discovery in science. But * Poor Richard's ' sayings express his mind at that 
time. The perils and anxieties of the great war gave him a deeper insight. He and 
others entered upon it ^ with a rope around their necks.' As he told the Constitutional 
Convention of 1787, when he proposed that its daily sessions be opened with prayer, the 
experiences of that war showed him that * God verily rules in the affairs of men.' And 
when the designs for an American coinage were under discussion, Franklin proposed 
to stamp on them, not *■ A Penny Saved is a Penny Earned,* or any other piece of 
worldly prudence, but * The Fear of the Lord is the Beginning of Wisdom.' " 

(d) Christian experience confirms the declarations of Scripture that 
particular events are brought about by God with special reference to the 
good or ill of the individuaL Such events occur at times in such direct 
connection w^ith the Christian's prayers that no doubt remains w^ith regard 
to the providential arrangement of them. The possibDity of such divine 
agency in natural events cannot be questioned by one who, like the Chris- 
tian, has had experience of the greater wonders of regeneration and daily 
intercourse with God, and who believes in the reality of creation, incarna- 
tion, and miracles. 

Providence prepares the way for men's conversion, sometimes by their own partial 
reformation, sometimes by the sudden death of others near them. Instance Luther 
and Judson. The Christian learns that the same Providence that led him before his 
conversion is busy after his conversion in directing his steps and in supplying his 
wants. Daniel Defoe : *^I have liecn fed more by miracle than Elijah when the angels 
were his purveyors." In Psalm 32, David celebrates not only God's pardoning mercy but 
his subsequent providential leading: "I will coansal the« vith mine eye upon thae " (Terse 8). It 
may be objected that we often mistake the meaning of events. We answer that, as in 
nature, so in providence, we are compelled to believe, not that we know the design, but 
that there is a design. Instance Shelley's drowning, and Jacob Knapp's prayer tliat 
his opponent might be stricken dumb. Lyman Beecher's attributing the burning of 
the Unitarian church to God's Judgment upon false doctrine was invalidated a little 
later by the burning of his own church. 

Job 23 : 10 — " He knoweth the mj that is mine," or " the waj that is with me," i. e., my inmost way, life, 
character ; " When he hatlL tried me, I shall come forth as gold." 1 Cor. 19 : 4 — " and the rook was Christ "» 
Christ was the ever present source of their refreshment and life, both physical and 
spiritual. God's providence is all exercised through Christ. 2 Cor. 2:14 — "Bat thanks be 
onto God, who alwajs leadeth as in triomph in Christ ' ; not, as in A. Y., " oaaseth as to triamph." Paul 
glories, not in conquering, but in being conquered. Let Christ triumph, not Paul. 
•* Great Kin^ of grace, my heart subdue ; I would be led In triumph too, A willing 
captive to my Lord, To own the conquests of his word." Therefore Paul can call 
himself " the prisoner of Christ Jesos " ( Eph. 3:1). It was Christ who had shut him up two yean 
in Ooesarea, and then two succeeding years in Home. 

IV. Belations op the Doctrine op Pbotedekob. 

1. To miraeleB and works of grace. 

Particular providence is the agency of God in what seem to ns the minor 
affairs of nature and human life. Special providence is only an instance 



432 THB WORKS OF OOD. 



of (kid's particiilar proridenoe which Hks special relation to ns or makes 
pocnliar impression upon us. It is special, not as respects the means 
which Ood makes nae of, bnt as respects the effect prodnoed apon n& In 
si>ecial proridence we have only a more impressiTe manifestation of Gk)d*s 
nniversal oontroL 

Miracles and works of grace like regeneration are not to be regarded as 
belonging to a different order of things from God's special providences. 
Thej too, like special providences, may have their natural connections and 
antecedents, although they more readily suggest their divine authorship. 
Nature and God are not mutually exclusive, — nature is rather €k)d*s 
method of working. Since nature is only the manifestation of God, special 
providence, miracle, and regeneration are simply different degrees of 
extraordinary nature. Certain of the wonders of Scripture, such as the 
destruction of Sennacherib's army and the dividing of the Bed Sea, the 
plagues of Egypt, the flight of quails, and the dranght of fishes, can be 
counted as exaggerations of natural forces, while at the same time they are 
operations of the wonder-working God. 

The faUinflr of snow from a roof is an example of ordinary ( or particular ) providence. 
But If a man Is killed by it, it becomes a special providence to him and to others wha 
are thereby taufcht the insecurity of life. So the providiner of ooal for fuel in the 
Kfoloffib ages may be reir&rded by different persons in the lijrht either of a general or 
of a special providence. In all the operations of nature and all the events of life Clod's 
pnividciice is exhibited. That providence becomes special^ when it manifestly sujr- 
gests some care of Ood for us or some duty of ours to God. Savage, Life beyond 
Death, 285 — ** Mary A. Livermore's life was saved during her travels in the West by her 
hf5aring and instantly obeying what seemed to her a voice. She did not know where it 
ciiiiio from ; but she leaped, as the voice ordered, from one side of a car to the other, 
anrl instantly the side where she had been sitting was cruslied in and utterly demolished." 
In u Himlliar way, the life of Dr. Oncken was saved in the railroad disaster at Norwalk. 

Trench gives the name of "'providential miracles*' to those Scripture wonders which 
may be explained as wrought through the agency of natural laws ( see Trench, Miracles, 
19). Mozley also ( Miracles, 117-12U) calls these wonders miracles, because of the pre- 
dictive word of Ood which accompanied them. He says that tlie difference in effect 
lx*twcen miracles and special providences is that the latter give some warrant, whUe 
the former give fidl warrant, for believing that they are wrought by God. He calls 
special providences '* invisible miracles. " fip. of Southampton, Place of Miracles, 12, 
i:)— '* The art of Bezaleel in constructing the tabernacle, and the plans of generals like 
Moses and Joshua, Gideon, Barak, and David, are in the Old Testament ascribed to the 
direct inspiration of God. A less religious writer would have ascribed them to the 
instinct of military skill. No miracle is necessarily involved, when, in devising the 
system of ceremonial law it is said: 'Jeborih spake ontoMoMi' (Horn. 5:1). God is every- 
where present in the history of Israel, but miracles are strikingly rare. " We prefer to 
8uy tluit the line between the natural and the supernatural, between special providence 
and miracle, is an arbitrary- one, and that the same event may often be regarded either 
OS siKJciul providence or as miracle, according as we look at it from the point of view 
of its relation to other events or from the point of view of its relation to God. 

E. G. liol)inson : ** If Vesuvius should send up ashes and lava, and a strong wind 
should scatter them, it could be said to rain Are and brimstone, as at Sodom and 
Gomorrha." There is abundant evident of volcanic action at the Dead Sea. See article 
on the I'hysical Preparation for Israel in Palestine, by G. Frederick Wright, in Bib. 
Sac, April, 1901:364. The three great miracles— the destruction of Sodom and 
Gomorrha, the parting of the waters of the Jordan, the falling down of the walls of 
Jericho —are dcsorilx;d as effect of volcanic eruption, elevation of the bed of the river 
by a landslide, and earthquake-shock overthrowing the walls. Salt slime thrown up 
may have enveloped Lot's wife and turned her into "a mound of alt " ( G«n. 19 : 26 ) . In like 
manner, some of Jesus' works of healing, as for instance those wrought upon para- 
lytics and epileptics, may be susceptible of natural explanation, while yet they show 



EELATI0N3 OP THE DOCTRJITB OP PROVIDEKOB. 433 

that Christ is absolute Lord of natureT For the naturalistic view, see Tyndall on 
Miracles and Special Providences, in Frairments of Science, 45, 418. Per contra, see 
Farrar, on Divine Providence and General Laws, In Science and Theology, 5i-«0 ; Row, 
Bampton Loot, on Christian Evidences, 109-115; Oodet, Defence of Christian Faith, 
Oiap. 2 ; Bowne, The Immanence of God, 66-4S3. 

2. To prayer and its answer. 

What has been said with regard to God's connection with natore suggests 
the question, how Crod can answer prayer consistently with the fixity of 
natural law. 

Tyndall (see reference above), while repelling the charge of denying that God can 
answer prayer at all, yet does deny that he can answer it without a miracle. He says 
expressly *^ that without a disturbance of natural law quite as serious as the stoppage 
of an eclipse, or the rolling of the St. Lawrence up the falls of Niagara, no act of 
humilation, individual or national, could call one shower from heaven or deflect 
toward us a single beam of the sun. " In reply we would remark : 

A« Negatively, that the true solution is not to be reached : 

(a) By making the sole effect of prayer to be its reflex influence npon 
the petitioner. — Prayer presupposes a Qod who hears and answers. It 
will not be offered, unless it is believed to accomplish objective as well as 
subjective results. 

According to the first \iew mentioned above, prayer is a mere spiritual gynmastioB^- 
an effort to lift ourwlves from the ground by tugging at our own boot-straps. David 
Hume said well, after hearing a sermon by Dr. Lecchman : ** We can make use of no 
expression or even thought in prayers and entreaties which does not imply that these 
prayers have an influence." See Tyndall on Prayer and Natural Law, in Fragments of 
Science, 35. Will men pray to a God who is both deaf and dumb ? Will the sailor on 
the bowsprit whistle to the wind for the sake of improving his voice? Horace fiush- 
nell called thi8 perversion of prayer a ** mere dumb-lxsll exercise. '* Baron Munchausen 
pulled himself out of the bog in China by tugging away at his own pigtail. 

Hyde, God's Education of Man, 164, 155— ** Prayer is not the reflex action of my will 
upon itself, but rather the communion of two wills, in which the finite comes into 
connection with the Infinite, and, like the trolley, appropriates its purpose and power." 
Hamack, Wesen des Christenthums, 42, apparently follows Schleiermacher in unduly 
limiting prayer to general petitions which receive only a subjective answer. He tells 
us that ** Jesus taught his disciples the Lord's Prayer in response to a request for 
directions how to pray. Tet we look in vain therein for requests for special gifts of 
grace, or for particular good things, even though they are spiritual. The name, the 
will, the kingdom of God — these are the things which are the objects of petition.'* 
Hamack forgets that the same Christ said also : "ill things vbataooTtr ye pny and lak for, bditro 
that jenodTe them, and ye shall hare them" ( Mark 11 : 24 ) . 

( 6 ) Nor by holding that God answers prayer simply by spiritual means^ 
sach as the action of the Holy Spirit npon the spirit of man. — The realm 
of spirit is no less subject to law than the realm of matter. Scripture and 
experience, moreover, alike testify that in answer to prayer events take 
place in the outward world which would not have taken place if prayer had 
not gone before. 

According to this second theory, God feeds the starving Elijah, not by a distinct 
message from heaven but by giving a compassionate disposition to the widow of 
Zarephath so that she is moved to help the prophet. 1 L 17 : 9 — " behold, I hare oommandeda 
vidow tiiere to Biut&in thee." But Go<l could also feed Elijah by the ravens and the angel 
( 1 L 17 : 4 ; 19 : 15 ), and the pouring rain that followed Elijah's prayer ( 1 K. 18 : 42-45 ) 
cannot be explained as a subjective spiritual phenomenon. Diman, Theistic Argument, 
268—" Our charts map out not only the solid shore but the windings of the ocean cur- 
rents, and we look into the morning papers to ascertain the gathering of storms on the 

28 




tif -ai*^ IkvJcr XamcBiiA.*' Bus 

k**"- «tT Ai»*Jin»r _4.u|n*r. >:S4. •=r"r*3rDrc Hint- n. 
:fl» liii' Uf n:''PTiiir.i <: ▼■ *! r*:^urL "i 

JUC l^-l-JT* 111* "'wi:fiif i -.1** iji. 

' f 'S JT 17- ^iie^*^-=-'-r.f> tilflS Gild BOSqtEUX^ X '*! ■■I'l ^ Z£ IBCIL 1^ 

OkL^t ti"^^ fULS c<f •'t>«:T-^<J jftTvi Aft LfcxiziT .irnfiTSr^-f gassKL*^. &2i£ 
LOS -v-jfttajoL, «:» iiir jm -rt^ eu. nat. 'vi'lj^ 3i:c. 



Hr'ti^. wiL. mut iik 111:111111 wH uk cixjt & n±ikzrr« 

!Li c»»]Sit» tiar &u£ -vuljc kufv't ilL mc- 7ncren s tt- 

uiiiiiiiv.'ftat'ft: .£J iruc^ Tc^r^^ » THen^-rv ar fci-i B fU fg. (f xiit not p e LSU tm,z *^jwZ. 

» ■» Aa. 4 1« , Z. ':; It'iiims'iL: *'Jl 71^4 IT o:^ nanaxKiL K3IK tr Taay. 

pm>*rv ttT». iKiAUiuv- u? zii» i/nkirj. Mux. iiwdf v jc^y aadl^CT «^*cb. 3z. kw jcrrtce 




' c S'je 'tt* vMSk'jfstiiE -prkjer itt & jiLTac^ f jc-a^. riJEAQ irflaefe ramtto 




▼"€ vQiitaiv inr •aiuipwi n ■:▼-• ▼i.r?. : fc-SL Try Tr&mn^ i^kl "U dr- f fr 
«» \\ ttt» ♦T.'.-iufti'a 'J* -uju: luriier toe iKfTKrimaxuxif vlu:^ » nndflc 



i, Or^t iiit'7 iaiK»*r ^ctT'er, *^*ii. viiiei. thcs joiFiner iz^^ck^nH Ai t ug e fc im 

uuf ui**"?- ir.i ji^ «r. tnu; *'fi*tf!a trf- Tir:»rQciM -viifih tbew SMne IiXCik left 
V. ixj*fuj«»:."*»f* »'.niiC i**^*;? iiirr*: ur>->«-Tr- •> rSgVj **.^ A5 mfcx <v~iiL.^cziM^ the Iaits 

tilt r.«t ii*niii'j*2L fc; Or.»L hiet onttL'raj* ti,*^ Ih^K^ c^ zuscTf H:* Icizic J^knnci 

ittV^, 'Jin L Ui»*: '.if JKV m "l-!irrg-r Vl- HE. 



BiiMUUb *j»- lift n. «it ti«- Tnuv-frnupf : *" KonzrF if imif nrxt it Iwr yr^^wPBf Hot 
n- !«?• r^»?u»u^ 1». T n. |ft;j liiio "•rifttsr mnxiii'i mi. cjiHiL * Tc*. si our. vstt o.xts. 
r'.*r xuui. •-"•i«iru*.it t milioum. -tit wbt-c runs- 1:7 Tiit «;"r:rjci.i»|: b..i«- r.i. n mactoes 

uvr :^iK Ui^ L i»t»r. (•! €i«r'."tn'..'iTT ^ Lew «n ii:n our xhkuciw ^on i:»ur iwrrtaxs. naqr 
ot. ^»ur u<(iuii4|r tiL tin tnTkr Wusiuk tiMy art xmit.im^ Aiifi i»ur ^cn-imij. asv not 
CT^•^» niimerv- £»fiJUaU. BriK»K»: "Tut- ruas:\€T ctf & muKi.ml -trtcrri Tn/gni cui t«ct 
v-ztiftiir limr iik itimtuxarini: i«? imuDdf sue rtit- mcu.idKy -v^Lk-^ i.im*m ^vnnydntnarBi 
im«au*A. TiK ii(«> 11^ ttK iii*ccrutm«in »?* 11:11 ahmfr^d. l»ui n: tbf»jr imribuiirivc 
jwauut- ax. jutum^ TuntTrr itf iuhbl li « tuvtimitt iftai tbQT i1>^'bH' %e 




RELATIONS OF THE DOCTRIKE OF PROVIDENCE. 435 

imnfiangring' in Order to secure a desired reeult. So nature, which exercises the infinite 
Sidll of the divine Master, is governed by unvarying laws ; but he, by these laws, pro- 
duces an infinite variety of results.** 

Hodge, Popular Lectures, 4&, W — ** The system of natural laws is far more flexible 
in God's hands than it is in ours. We act on second causes externally; Ood acts on 
them internally. We act upon them at only a few isolated points ; God acts upon every 
point of the system at the same time. The whole of nature may be as plastic to his 
will as the air in the organs of the great singer who articulates it into a flt expression 
of every thought and passion of his soaring soul." Upton, Hibbert Lectures, 155 — ** If 
all the chemical elements of our solar system preexisted in the fiery cosmic mist, there 
must have been a time when quite suddenly the attractions between these elements 
overcame the degree of caloric force which held them apart, and the rush of elements 
into chemical union must have been consummated with inconceivable rapidity. Unl- 
formitarianism is not universal.'* 

Shaler, Interpretation of Nature, chap. 2—** By a little increase of centrifugal force 
the elliptical orbit is changed into a parabola, and the planet becomes a comet. By a 
little reduction in temperature water becomes solid and loses many of its powers. So 
unexpected results are brought about and surprises as revolutionary as if a Supreme 
Power immediately intervened.^* William James, Address before Soc. for Psych. 
Research : *' Thought-transference may Involve a critical point, as the physicists call 
it, which is passed only when certain psychic conditions are realized, and otherwise not 
reached at all— Just as a big conflagration will break out at a certain temperature, 
below which no conflagration whatever, whether big or littie, can occur." Tennyson, 
Life, 1 :a84— ** Prayer is like opening a sluice between the great ocean and our littie 
fthannftig, when the great sea gathers itself together and flows in at full tide." 

Since prayer is nothing more nor less than appeal to a personal and 
present God, whose granting or withholding of the requested blessing is 
believed to be determined by the prayer itself, we must conclude that 
prayer moves God, or, in other words, induces the putting forth on his 
part of an imperative volition. 

The view that in answering prayer God combines natural forces is elaborated by 
Chalmers. Works, 2 : 314, and 7 : 234. See Diman, Thcistic Argument, 111 — *' When laws 
are conceived of, not as single, but as combined, instead of being immutable in their 
operation, they are the agencies of ceaseless change. Phenomena are governed, not by 
invariable forces, but by endlessly varying combinations of invariahlc forces," Diman 
seems to have followed Argyll, Reign of Law, 100. 

Janet, Final Causes, ?19— ** I kindle a fire in ray grate. I only intervene to produce 
and combine together the different afircnts whose natural action behooves to produce 
the effect I have need of ; but the first step once taken, all the phenomena constituting 
oombustion engender each other, conformably to their laws, without a new interven- 
tion of the agent ; so that an observer who should study the series of these phenomena, 
without perceiving the first hand that had prepared all, could not seize that hand in any 
especial act, and yet thrre is a preconceived plan and combination." 

Hopkins, Sermon on Prayer-gauge: Man, by sprinkling plaster on his field, may 
cause the com to grow more luxuriantly ; by kindling great fires and by firing cannon, 
he may cause rain ; and God can surely, in answer to prayer, do as much as man can. 
Lewes sajrs that the fundamental character of all theological philosophy is conceiving 
of phenomena as subject to supernatural volition, and consequently as eminentiy and 
irregularly variable. This notion, he says, is refuted, first, by exact and rational 
prevision of phenomena, and, secondly, by the possibility of our modifying these phe- 
nomena so as to promote our own advantage. But we ask in reply : If we can modify 
them, cannot God? But, lest this should seem to imply mutability in God or Incon- 
sistency in nature, we remark, in addition, that : 

(b) God may have so prearranged the laws of the material universe and 
the events of history that, while the answer to prayer is an expression of 
his will, it is granted through the working of natural agencies, and in per- 
fect accordance with the general principle that results, both temporal and 
spiritual, are to be attained by intelligent creatures through the use of the 
appropriate and appointed means. 



436 TBB WORKS OF GOD. 

J. P. C>yAe;Cr«]eiitiilP of Scieiwx. m^'^TlK Jmoqoud loom of inetf vooU 
perf#«tt|r nsiUfjnm pkttik tebrie; the peifontcd cardi decenaiiie a MAeccion of tbe 
tbrvak/fo, «nd tbrrjoffh a cffmhbmtiffm of these rariable eooditii«ies» lo eompfex that the 
tAmiTYt^ cannrjC folk^w tlieir fotricate w caklnga , the prednHfrned panem 
E, G. KiAAotfm : "^Tbe aiost formidatfle objectloo to this theory is the appaicot 
tenancfe ft Jeods to the doccrine of DeoearftarianiBB. But if it prerapposes that tree 
acdofkf hare beea taken into account, it cannot eaiilj be ihovn to be fklK.** The 
MMhtfp wb#j waaaaked hj hb curate toamctioo piajen for rain waa mxlalj Mcpckai 
wiM^n be refili#^ :"* First consuit the barometer." PtdDipa Brooks :*- Prajer li not the 
eiMKiuerfnir of God's relnctauce, but the taking liold of God's wiUincneas^" 

The Pflirrims at Pljmouth, somewhere about 18SB, prajed for rain. Tbej met at 
f A. M^ and continued in prayer for eiirbt or nine lioiniL While thej wef« assembled 
fAffwhi frsthcrred, and the next mominir began rains which, with some intervaK lasted 
fourteen days. John Easter was many years mgo an evangelist in Tirginia. A large 
out-d'Kir UK^inir was bein^ held. Many thousands had sssriiiUkd, when h c aij storm 
dou'ls Urgan Ut gather. There was no shelter to which the multitudes could retreat. 
Ttifr raf n had already reached the adjoining fields when John Easter cried : ** Brethren, 
hhtdlW^ while IcailuponGod to stay the storm tUl the gospel is preached to this multi« 
tu'J'; ! " Then h«; knelt and prayed that the audience might be spared the rain, and 
that aftcrr they had gr^ne to thc-f r homes there might be refreshing showers. Behold^ 
the clonals fiart^jd as they came near, and passed to either side of the crowd and then 
cVmA again, leaving the place dry where tlie audience had assembled, and the next 
day t\ui pijstponed showers came down upon the ground that had been the day befora 
omitt45rl. 

Bince God is immanent in nature, an answer to prajer, coming about 
tbroiigh the iuter\'ention of natural law, may be as real a revelation of 
GrxrH ]^>er8onal care as if the laws of nature were suspended, and God inter- 
Ik>h<.h1 1^ an exercise of his creative power. Praver and its answer, though 
having GcmI's immediate volition as their connecting bond, maj yet be 
provided for in the original plan of the universe. 

The universe dfiee not exist for itself, but for moral ends and moral beings, to reveal 
God and to furnish facilities of intercourse between God and intelligent creatures^ 
ISiKhf>p Ilcrkeley: **T)ic universe is God's ceaseless conversation with his creatures." 
Tho universe certainly 8Ubser>'C8 moral ends — the discouragement of vice and the 
r(;wanl of virtue ; why not spiritual ends also ? When we remember that there is no 
true prayer which God does not inspire ; that ever>' true prayer is part of the plan of 
t)M9 iinivcTMO linked in with all the rest and provided for at the beginning ; that God is 
in nature and in mind, supervising all their movements and making all fulfill his will 
and rf;voul his personal care; that God can adjust the forces of nature to each other 
far more skilfully than can man when man produces effectA which nature of herself 
oould novtir uccomiilish ; that (iod isnot confined to nature or her forces, but can work 
by hiH creative and omniiKitont will where other means are not suflHcient,— we need 
luive no feiu*, fithor that natural law wiU bar God's answers to prayer, or that these 
auMwers will cause a shock or jar in the s^'st^^m of the imi verse. 

Matlu.'Hon, Mcvsagos of the Old Religions, 321, 323—** Hebrew poetry never deals with 
outward nature for its own sake. The eye never rests on beauty for itself alone. The 
hcavetis are the work of God^s hands, tho earth is God's footstool, the winds are God's 
minlHU^rH, tho starH are God's host, the thunder is God's voice. What we call Nature 
till! Jew called (iod.'* Miss Fleloise E. Hersey : ** Plato in the Phaedrus sets forth in a 
splendid myth the means by which the gods refresh themselves. Once a year, in a 
mighty hoHt, they drive their chariots up the steep to the topmost vault of heaven. 
TliontM) they may Uphold all tho wonders and the secrets of the universe ; and, quick- 
en<*<l by tho sight of tho great plain of truth, they return home replenished and made 
gliul t>y the (M'lentful vision." Abp. Trench, Poems, 134 — " Lord, what a charge within 
UN Olio short hour H|>ent in thy presence wiU prevail to make — What heavy burdens 
from our boMoms tak(% What parched grounds refresh as with a shower I We kneel, 
and all around us s(M>ras to lower; We rise, and all, the distant and the near. Stands 
forth in sunny outline, bruvo and clear; Wo kneel how weak, we rise howfuUof 
powor 1 Why, thortiforo, should wo do ourselves this wrong. Or others— that we are 
uut always strung ; That wo are ever overborne with care ; That we should ever weak 




BELATIONS OP THE DOCTRINE OF PBOVIDEKCB. 437 

or beartleflB be. Anxious or troubled, when with us is prayer. And Joy and strength and 
courage are with thee?'* See Calderwood, Science and Rcliirion, 209-300; McCkwh^ 
Divine Government, 215 ; Liddon, Elements of Heli«rion, 178-203 ; Hamilton, Autology, 
680-4)94. See also JeUett, Donnellan Lectures on the Efficacy of Prayer ; Butterworth, 
Story of Notable Prayers ; Patton, Prasrer and Its Answers ; Monrad, World of Prayer ; 
Prime, Power of Prayer; Phelps, The Still Hour; Haven, and Bickersteth, on Prayer; 
Prayer for Colleges ; Cox, in Expositor, 1877 : chap. 3 ; Faunoe, Prayer as a Theory and 
a Eaot ; Trumbull, Prayer, Its Nature and Scope. 

G. If asked 'whether this relation between prayer and its proyidential 
answer can be scientificallj tested, we reply that it may be tested just as a 
father's love may be tested by a dutiful son. 

( a ) There is a general proof of it in the past experience of the Chris- 
tian and in the past history of the church. 

Pl 116 : 1-8— "I I<nr« Jfthonh beouse he haanUi mj toIm and mj saRtlicitiimi." Luther prajrs for the 
dying Melanchthon, and he recovers. George Mtiller trusts to prayer, and builds his 
great orphan-houses. For a multitude of Instances, see Prime, Answers to Prayer. 
Charles H. Spurgeon : *' If there is any fact that is proved, it is that God hoars prayer. 
If there is any scientific statement that is capable of mathematical proof, this is." Mr. 
Spurgeon's language is rhetorical: he means simply that God's answers to prayer 
remove all reasonable doubt. Adoniram Judson : ** I never was deeply Interested in 
any object, I never prayed sincerely and earnestly for anything, but it came ; at some 
time— no matter at how distant a day —somehow, in some shai>e, proltably the last 
I should have devised — it came. And yet I have always had so little faith I May God 
forgive me, and while he condescends to use me as his instrument, wipe the sin of 
unbelief from my heart ! " 

( 6 ) In condescension to human blindness, God may sometimes submit 
to a formal test of his faithfulness and power, — as in the case of Elijah 
and the priests of BaaL 

b. 7 : iO-13— Ahaz is rebuked for not asking a sign, — in him it indicated unbelief. 1 L 
18 : 36-38 — Elijah said, *' let it b« known this d&j that tkoa art God in Israel . . . Then the fire of Jehovah fell, 
and ooosomsd the burnt offering.'* Romaine speaks of *' a year famous for believing." Mat 21 : 21, 
22 — "eTaa if 7« shall saj onto this moontain, Be thon taien up and cast into the sea, it shall be done. And all things, 
whatfoeTer je shall ask h prajer, belierlng, ye shall reoeire." ** Impossible ? " said Nai>oleon ; ** then it 
shall be done ! " Arthur Hallam, quoted in Tennypon's Life, 1 : 4-i — *' With respect to 
prayer, you ask how I am to distinguish the operations of God in me from the motions 
of my own heart. Why sliould you distinguish them, or bow do you know that there 
is any distinction ? Is God less God because he acts by general laws when he deals 
with the common elements of nature?" *• Watch in prayer to see what cometh. 
Foolish boys that knock at a door in wantonness, will not stay till somebody open to 
them; but a man that hath business will knock, and knock again, till he gets his 
answer." 

Martineau, Seat of Authority, lOS, 103— "God is not beyond nature simply,— ho is 
within it. In nature and in mind we must find the action of his power. There is no 
need of his being a third factor over and above the life of nature and the life of man." 
Hartley Coleridge : " Be not afraid to pray,— to pray is right. Pray if thou canst with 
hope, but ever pray. Though hope be weak, or sick with long delay ; Pray in the dark- 
ness, if there be no light. Far is the time, remote from human sight. When war and 
discord on the earth shall cease; Yet every prayer for universal peace Avails the 
blessed time to expedite. Whate'er is good to wish, ask that of heaven. Though it be 
what thou canst not hope to see ; Pray to be perfect, though the material leaven 
Forbid the spirit so on earth to be ; But if for any wish thou dar'st not pray, Then pray 
to God to cast that wish away." 

(c) "When proof sufficient to convince the candid inquirer has been 
already given, it may not consist \^ith the divine majesty to abide a test 
imposed by mere curiosity or scepticism, — as in the case of the Jews who 
sought a sign from heaven. 



438 THE WORKS OF GOD. 

mc 12 : 39 ^" ia tiil and AdnlUrou g«Mntion Mdukh afUr a lign ; and thm dull ifS rign be ghta to it bat tkt 
dp of Joaab tba prapbtt." Tynduirs praycr-Kauge would ensure a oonflict of prayers. Since 
our pnsHont life is a moral probation, delay in the answer to our prayers, and even the 
denial of siMMrlflo thinirs for which we pray, may be only slgrns of God's faithfolness 
and lovo. (ieorire MOller : ** I myself have been brln^nir certain requests before Ood 
now for soventiien years and six months, and never a day has passed without my pray- 
ing c<moomlnfr them all this time ; yet the full answer has not oome up to the present. 
Hut I look for it ; I oonndontly expect It." Christ's prayer, • Ut tbii cup pwi vwaj frna ■•" 
( Mat 26 : 89 ), and Paul's prayer that the "tbora in tb« fl«ib " miflrht depart from him ( 2 Gar. 12 : 7, 
8 ), wore not answered in the precise way requested. No more are our prayers always 
answered in the way wo expect. Chrises prayer was not answered by the literal 
removlnir of the cup, because the drinking of the cup was really his glory ; and Paul's 
prayor was not answenHl by the literal removal of the thorn, because the thorn was 
DfHMlfuI for hlA own i>crfectlnir. In the case of both Jesus and Paul, there were larger 
interests to be consulted than their own freedom from suffering. 

(d) Sinoo QinVR will is the link betwoon prayer and its answer, there 
can 1h) uo siioh tiling as a physical demonstration of its efficacy in any pro- 
IM)mhI »iHi). PhyHical tests have no application to things into which free 
will onti^rs as a ooiiHtitutivo element. But tliere are moral tests, and moral 
tests lire as Hcientillc as physical tests can bo. 

Dinuiii, Th4'lf«tic Aryumont, 676, alludcw to Ooldwln Smith's denial that any sdentiflc 
mot hod van tH« uppllfd to history iM^itiiiHi^ It would make num a necessary link in a chain 
<}f ciiumt iiiul oflfii^t hikI ho would di*ny his f hh) will. But Dlman says this is no more 
imposHlbhf thiui tho dovvlopmont of the Individual according to a fixed law of firrowth, 
whilo 3 c*t f riHv will 1m stHlulouHly nn^pt^rtod. Fnmdesays history Is not a science, because 
no i«rion(M< oouUl fort'tt^ll MohainmiHluiiiHui or liuddhlsm; and Ooldwln Smith says that 
**pn«<llotlon iH tho urt)wn of all (k^Icuiv.'* But, as Diman remarks: "geometry, geol- 
ogy, phyHlology* im^ mMiMuvs, j*ot thoy do not predict." Buckle brought history into 
ooiiUunpt by nsHerttng tlmt it ot>uld bo nnalj'sed and referred solely to intellectual laws 
and ron*4*s. To nil this wo reply that thoro nia>' be soientific tests which are not physical, 
or oven lnt4^1UH*tual, but only moral. Such a ti>8t Ood urges his people to use, in MaL 3 : 
10 _" Brinir y ^* ^^* ^^ ^^^ ^* itor^oaM .... and proTt m now btrwitb, if I vill not optn yoa ttit 
wlnaowi of btaven. and pour yw oat a blMiing. tbat tbcn sball not bo room «mo|^ to rooolTo it" All such 
pniyor is a rt^tUn'tion of Christ's words— some fragment of his teaching transformed 
Into n Miippii^'**^ *<»" ( Joba 15 : 7 ; bih) Wi»«t<H>tt, Ittl), Com., in h^o ) ; all such prayer is moi^ 
ovoi* t ln» wi»i*k of tho Spirit of (UhI ( Rool 8 : 86, 27 ). It is therefore sure of an answer. 

Hut t lio t«i«t t>f pniyor pn))H«K«d by Tj-ndall is not applicable to the thing to be tested 
liy It. Il«»|»k ii»»» Pniyor and tho Pra^'or-gaugo, 2S *g. — " We cannot measure wheat by 

ilio y«i'«l, or t ho weight of a dl»<H>ur9e with a imir of scales. God's wisdom might 

WM« t hat it wiw i»«»t. iMiit for tlio }H«titlonors, nor for the objects of their peUtion, to grant 
1 hoir nH|iH'««t . * 'lu'i^tlrtUH tlion>rort« could luit, without S(K>cia] divine authoriiation, rest 
ihoir niM l> »«p<»ii tho rtNiultH of »uoh a tt'st. . . . Why may we not ask for irreat changes 
III iml II i'«» y '''"** * *"' ***"**' ri^UHJii that a woll-lnformed child di>os not ask for the moon 
a* a pli»> H»*»**'' • • • '^'^"'•^Hn^ two limitations uiH>n prayer. First, except by special 
illMioMoii <»r ti«M*» wot^iunot iiHk for a miraolo, for the same reason that a diild could 
liMl tt«H Ulm fiH •»••»' <*» *'*»«*" t»w houcKv down. Nature is the house wo live In. Secondly, 
wo iHiiiiK'l «•** '***' luiything umlor tho laws of nature which would contravene the 
nlijool of 1 1»«««» l"w«. WImtovor wo i^u do for oursiaves under theee laws, Ood expects 
U« lo «lM. • «* ' '"' *'^'"'* iHoold^ lot him gt) near tho ttn\-not bog his father to carry him." 

Il.ii I.OI I HiH*!"**'! '•• Hm^lohnry la only »HH»ial |»hy»itw. Ho denies freedom, and dedaras 
HH» Olio wlM^ will iU««|K^ to tho aunounwmont of the Mlldmay Conference to be 

" "•'-"•«. . » •- *-. orhumanwilL But 

modiflotl by artificial 
can interfere, cannot 

4|ui) ih« < »«»' -»•""• .; 'V T '^"'* **""*' ^'" "**' oxjHHMtho rather to gi>v everything he 
albshu N»*» will Worm h,.r who lo>o.hli. ohlldglvo him the ran^r to phiy witK or 
aTutV m^ wHlMl«*^'y.*!* ^*'>>^^ *wwla, .Imply Ukhiu*. tht* ohik! asks tht^ things. If the 
I Hi jliJ^Jir"" iil«Himor Hhould giv** mo p»»rml»iou to pn>^ the lever that 

Ifiill* *"*'^''*"» * ahouM d«vltno to u«i(^ my )K>wtT and should 
ffy.r* ^** *»*»»» \\%\U^ ho nr»t siMw^at^Hi it and showed me how. 
HM|««rUlmi^)te«*bi*«Mlb*«io|ivatvif^(it; btttboa^iritbBHilf 





RELATIONS OF THE DOOTRIKE OF PROYIDEKOB. 439 

mafcatk iatanoMBkii ftr us with grotaiogs vhioh ouuwt be niUnd " ( ha. 8 : 28 ). And wo ou^rbt not to 
talk of **8ubniittinfir'* to jierfect Wisdom, or of **beinflr rcsifirned*' to perfect Love. 
Shakespeare, Antony and Cleopatra, 2:1 — ** What the j [ the gods ] do delay, they do 
not deny. . • . Wo, igrnorant of ourselves. Beg often our own harms, which the wise 
powers Deny us for our ^ood; so find we profit By losing of our prayers.*' See 
Thornton, Old-Fashioned Ethics, 286-297. Per contrck^ see Galton, Inquiries Into Human 
Faculty, 277-294. 

8. To Christian activity. 

Here the tmth lies between the two extremes of qnietismand naturalism. 

(a) In opposition to the false abnegation of human reason and will which 
quietism demands, we hold that Gk>d guides us, not by continual miracle, 
but by his natural providence and the energizing of our faculties by his 
Spirit, so that we rationally and freely do our own work, and work out 
our own salvation. 

Upham, Interior Life, 366, defines quietism as ** cessation of wanderiniir thou^rhts and 
discursive ima^nations, rest from irregrular desires and affections, and perfect submis- 
sion of the wilL'* Its advocates, however, have often spoken of it as a^vingr up of our 
will and reason, and a swallowinfi: up of these in the wisdom and will of Qod. This 
phrascolofry is misleadinsr* and savors of a pantheistic mergring of man in Gk)d. Dor- 
ner: ** Quietism makes God a monarch without living subjects.*' Certain English 
quietists, like the Mohammedans, will not employ physicians in sickness. They quote 
2 Chron. 16 : 12, 13 — Asa " sought not to JehoTah, bat to iha pbjtieiuu. And An ilept with bis fatben." They 
forget that the "pbjiicuina" alluded to in Chronicles were probably heathen necro- 
mancers. Cromwell to his Ironsides : ** Trust God, and keep your powder dry I " 

Providence does not exclude, but rather implies the operation of natural law, by 
which we mean God's regular way of working. It leaves no excuse for the sarcasm 
of Robert Browning's Mr. Sludge the Medium, 2S3 — '* Saved your precious self from what 
befell The thirty-three whom Providence forgot." Scburman, Belief in God, 213— 
**The temples were hung with the votive offerings of those only who had escaped 
drowning." " So like Provvy ! " Bentham used to say, when anything particularly 
unseemly occurred in the way of natural catastrophe. Ck>d reveals himself in natural 
law. Physicians and medicine are his methods, as well as the impartation of faith and 
oourage to the patient. The advocates of faith-cure should provide by faith that no 
believing Christian should die. With the apostolic miracles should go inspiration, as 
Edward Irving declared. ** Every man is as lazy as circumstances will admit." We 
throw upon the shoulders of Providence the burdens which belong to us to bear. 
" Vork oat joor own salTation witb fear and trembling ; for it is God wbo worketb in 70a botb to will and to work, 
for bis pwd plaasore" ( PbU. 2:12, 13). 

Prayer without the use of means is an insult to God. '* If God has decreed that you 
should live, what is the use of your eating or drinking ? " Can a drowning man refuse 
to swim, or even to lay hold of the rope that is thrown to him, and yet ask God to save 
him on account of his faith ? " Tie your camel," said Mohammed, "and commit it to 
God." Frederick Douglas used to say that when in slavery he often prayed for free- 
dom, but his prayer was never answered till he prayed with his feet— and ran away. 
Whitney, Integrity of Christian Science, 68— "The existence of the djmamo at the 
power-house does not make unnecessary the troUey line, nor the secondary motor, nor 
the conductor's application of the power. True quietism is a resting in the Lord after 
we have done our part." Ps. 37 : 7 — " Rest in Jeborab, and wait patiently for bim " ; Is. 57 : 2 — " le entor- 
etb into peaoe; tbey rest in tbeir beds, eaeb one tbat walketb in bis aprigbtnMS." Ian Maclaren, Cure of 
Souls, 147— " Religion has three places of abode : in the reason, which is theology ; in 
the conscience, which is ethics ; and in the heart, which is quietism." On the self-guid- 
ance of Christ, sec Adamson, The Mind in Christ, 203-332. 

George MUUer, writing about ascertaining the will of God, says: ^I seek at the 
beginning to get my heart into such a state tbat it has no will of its own in regard to a 
given matter. Nine tenths of the difficulties are overcome when our hearts are 
ready to do the Lord's will, whatever it may be. Having done this, I do not leave the 
result to feeling or simple impression. If I do so, I make myself liable to a great delu- 
sion. I seek the will of the Spirit of God through, or in connection with, the Word of 
God. The Spirit and the Word must be combined. If I look to the Spirit alone, witl^ 



440 THE WORKS OF GOD. 

outtbe Wovd«IlaymyBelf opeotoflrroatdeluskmsaleo. If the H0I7 Ghost gniides ia 
at all, bo will do it aooordin^ to the Scriptures, and neyor oootnuT to them. Next I 
take into aoooant providential drounistanoet. These often plainly tndlaite God's will 
in connection with his Word and his Spirit. I ask God in prayer to reveal to me hia 
will aright. Thus through prayer to God, the study of the Word, and reflectloii, I 
oome to a deliberate judirment according to the best of my knowledge and ability, 
and, if my mind is thus at peace, I proceed accordingly.** 

We must not confound rational piety with false enthusiasm. See Isaac Tiyloiv 
Natural History of Enthusiasm. ^* Nc>t quiescence, but acquiescence, is demanded of 
us." Am God feeds " tht birdi tf tke kMTm" ( Mat 6 :» ), not by dropping food from heaven 
into their mouths, but by stimulating them to seek food for themselves, so God provides 
for his rational creatures by giving tbem a sanctified common sense and by leading them 
to use it. In a true sense Clurlstlanity gives us more will than ever. The Holy Spirit 
emandiMites the wUl, sets it upon proper objects, and flils it with new energy. We are 
therefore not to surrender ourselves passively to whatever professes to be a divine sug- 
gestion ; i iehi 4 : l~"beU«T« Mttrvj tpiht, btttproTa th« i^ti, vhttkcr tkej an of God." The test is 
the revcAlfHl word of God : Ii. 8 : 20 — " To tke Uv and to the toitimony I if tkoy ipoak sot mm^ag t* tkit 
vwd, nrolj tkwo ii m ■oftiing for tkoBL" See remarks on false Mysticism, pages 82, 88. 

( 6 ) In Opposition to natoralism, we hold that God is continually near 
the human spirit by his providential working, and that this providential 
working is so adjnstod to the Christian's nature and neoeeaities as to for- 
oish instruction with regard to duty, discipline of religions ohaiacteTt and 
needed help and comfort in triaL 

In interpreting Qod's providences, as in interpreting Scripture, we are 
dop«;nrlent nixm the Holy Spirit. The work of the Spirit is, indeed, in 
gr^^it part an application of Scripture truth to present circumstances, 
Wliile we never allow ourselves to act blindly and irrationally, but accus- 
Ufin onrficlveH to weigh evidence with regard to duty, we are to expect, as 
ilie gift of the Spirit, an understanding of circumstances — a fine sense of 
(ituVn providential puqx)scs with regard to us, which will make our true 
(ummti plain to ourselves, although we may not always be able to explain it 
Uf '/thf;ni. 

Tt0: ChrUttinn may have a continual divine guidance. Unlike the unfaithful and unbe- 
|l#rrlrig, of whom It Is said, in Pi. 106 : 13, " Thej waited not for his ooonsel, " the true believer has 
wWiotn glvfrfi him tnym atNive. Pi. 32: 8— "I will Instniet tboo and toaok thoo in the vay wkieh tkoa 
|M4to"; f'r^v.lrS — "iBallUjvayiacknovlodgf kim, indkovilldinetthy pathi"; PkiL 1 : 9 — " ind tkis I 
fftf, uut /4«/ Uto wuj aUood 7*1 man and mora in knowledge and all diMonunent '* ( ala&T^*i. — spiritual 
il\004'.rt»w»'nt)', Jaaal :&— "ifanj of joa lacketh wisdom, let kirn aak of God, who giretk (roO aidorroc 
t^»^„ i 'A Ail LMrail/ and apbraidetk not " ; John 15 : 15 — " Ho longer do I call 70a serranU; for tke eerrant knav- 
«(« M*. vlui hi« lATd dMtk : bat I hare called 70a firiends" ; CoL 1 : 9, 10— "that 70 ma7 be filled with the knowledg* 
«/ »,4 V..1 'A •'I epl/.toal vitdom and ondcrttanding, to walk worthil7 of the ]daA onto all pleasing." 

/>/«/!'« ¥'.it\rM rnaicfM I'rovldonce as well as the Bible personal to us. From every page 
/^ h*tt*»f** »• *•"'*' *« of th« Hlble, the living Oo<i speaks to us. Tholuck; "The more we 
fiyt^0igft\^^* i'* *^^*'ry flaliy rxM;urn*nce God's secret Inspiration, guiding and controlling 
ftm, # W' fo^'^'- ••'HJ Mil whlc'h U} others wears a common and every-day aspect prove to us 
f, 0i0n m**n m. woridroiiii work." Hutton. Essays: "Animals that are blind 8la\'e8 of 
ItHtnthf; ^^'^*"u ar,r,ijt by forces from within, have so to say fewer valves in their 
^//^i»i /-'^»«'""M//ri for tlM'imtrance of divine guidance. But minds alive to every word 
n9h"^ It* **' '^'''^U/it opfKirt unity for his Interference with suggestions that may alter 
^^ z./^*'-*'* "' ♦»">' ilvifli. Th«j higher the mind, the more it glides into the region of 
Ifffftf try ****'•' *^'t»tt*»u (h*tt\ turns the go<i<l by the slightest breath of thought." 80 the 
Ithti"**'**' '♦•"'•'•■ "OmUJji III,,, o thou gn«t J<fhovahr' likens God's leading of the 
lil*W' " ' *'' tt*mlf4 Imim-.i hy ttu; pilljir of ilns and cloud ; and Paul in his dungeon calls 
dlW"*'*' '•JijJJJL** «Wtai i«Ms riph. J : 1 ^ Afllictlon is the discipline of G<xi'8 providence. 
i|^li|tf^|Ht|^f* Wtt/# d/K-v f joi gfjt thrasheil, dot>s not get educated." On God's 
i^^^^^^^mftf^mM* MiJ|i<«fi|ihy and Ueiigion, 600-MS. 

Jrv 



RELATIONS OF THE DOCTRINE OF PROVIDENCE. 441 

Abraham "watovt, aok kaowiig whitker ks vanl" ( leb. 11 : 8 ). Not till he reached Canaan did 
he know the place of his destination. Like a child he placed his hand in the hand of his 
unseen Father, to be led whither he himself knew not. We often have guidance with- 
out discernment of that ^ruidance. Is. 42: 16— "I viil brin^^ th» blind by a mj that they knofw 
Bot ; ia piths that thay knov not vUl I lead thaoL** So we act more wisely than we ourselves under- 
stand, and afterwards look back with astonishment to see what we have been able to 
aocomplish. Emerson : " Himself from God he oould not free ; He builded better than 
he knew." Disappointments ? Ah, you make a mistake In the spellinsr ; the D should 
be an H : His appointments. Melanchthon : ** Quem poetae fortunam, nos Deum appell- 
amus." Chinese proverb : ^ The good Ood never smites with both hands.'* ** Tact is a 
sort of psychical automatism " ( Ladd ). There is a Christian tact which is rarely at 
fault, because its possessor is "lad by tha Spirit of God" (Rom. 8: 14). Fet we must always make 
allowance, as Oliver Cromwell used to say, **for the possibility of beingr mistaken.** 

When Luther*s friends wrote despairinflrly of the negrotiations at the Diet of Worms, 
he replied from Coburcr that he had been lookiner up at the niirht sky, spangled and 
studded with stars, and had found no pillars to hold them up. And jret they did not fall . 
Qod needs no props for his stars and planets. He han^ them on nothing. So, in the 
working of God's providence, the unseen is prop enough for the seen. Henry Drum- 
mond. Life, 127 — '* To find out God's will : 1. Pray. 2. Think. & Talk to wise people, 
but do not regard their decision as final. 4. Beware of the bias of your own will, but 
do not be too much afraid of it ( Ood never unnecessarily thwarts a man's nature and 
likings, and it is a mistake to think that his will is always in the line of the disagree- 
able ). 6. Meantime, do the next thing ( for doing God's will in small things is the best 
preparation for knowing it in great things). 0. When decision and action are 
necessary, go ahead. 7. Never reconsider the decision when it is finally acted on ; and 
8. You will probably not find out until afterwards, perhaps long afterwards, that you 
have been led at all.'* 

Amiel lamented that everything was left to his own responsibility and declared : ** It 
is this thought that disgusts me with the government of my own life. To win true 
peace, a man needs to feel himself directed, pardoned and sustained by a supreme 
Power, to feel himself in the right road, at the point where God would have him be, — 
in harmony with God and the universe. This faith gives strength and calm. I have 
not got it. All that is seems to me arbitrary and fortuitous." How much better is 
Wordsworth's faith. Excursion, book 4 : 581 — *' One adequate support For the calamities 
of mortal life Exists, one only : an assured belief That the procession of our fate, 
howo'er Sad or disturbed, is ordered by a fieing Of infinite benevolence and power. 
Whose everlasting purposes embrace AH accidents, converting them to good." Mrs. 
Browning, De Profundis, stanza xxiii — '* I praise thee while my days go on ; I love 
thee while my days go on I Through dark and dearth, through fire and frost. With 
emptied arms and treasure lost, I thank thee while my days go on I'* 

4. To the evil acts of free agents, 

(a) Here we must distinguish between the natural agenoj and the 
moral agency of God, or between acts of permissive providence and acts 
of efficient causation. We are ever to remember that God neither works 
evil, nor causes his creatures to work evil. All sin is chargeable to the self- 
will and perversity of the creature ; to declare God the author of it is 
the greatest of blasphemies. 

Bp. Wordsworth : ** Ood foresees evil deeds, but never forces them." •* God does not 
cause sin, any more than the rider of a limping horse causes the limping." Nor can it 
be said that Satan is the author of man's sin. Man's powers are his own. Not Satan, 
but the man himself, gives the wrong application to these powers. Not the cause, 
but the occasion, of sin is in the tempter ; the cause is in the evil will which yields to 
his persuasions. 

( 6 ) But while man makes up his evil decision independently of God, 
Gk>d does, by his natural agency, order the method in which this inward 
evil shall express itself, by limiting it in time, place, and measure, or by 
guiding it to the end which his wisdom and love, and not man*s intent, has 



442 THE WORKS OF GOD. 

m 

Bet In all this, however, God only allows sin to develop itself after its 
own nature, so that it may be known, abhorred, and if possible overcome 
and forsaken. 

Philippl, Glaubenfllehre, 2:272-884— **Juda8*8 treachery works the reoonciliation of 
the world, and Israel's apostasy the salvation of the Gentiles. .... God smooths the 
path of the sinner, and gives him chance for the outbreak of the evil, like a wise 
physician who draws to the surface of the body the disease that has been nging within, 
in order that it may be cured, if possible, by mild means, or, if not, may be removed by 
the knife." 

Christianity rises in spite of, nay, in consequence of opposition, like a kite against 
the wind. When Christ has used the sword with which he has girded himself, as he 
used Cyrus and the Assyrian, he breaks it and throws it away. He turns the world 
upside down that he may get it right side up. He makes use of every member of 
society, as the locomotive uses every cog. The suflTerings of the martyrs add to the 
number of the church ; the worship of relics stimulates the Crusades; the worship of 
the saints leads to miracle plays and to the modem drama ; the worship of images helps 
modem art ; monasticism, scholasticism, the Papacy, even sceptical and destructive 
criticism stir up defenders of the faith. Shakespeare, Richard III, 6:1 — " Thus doth 
he force the swords of wicked men To turn their own points on their masters' 
bosoms '* ; Hamlet, 1:2 — ** Foul deeds will rise, though all the earth overwhelm them, 
to men's eyes " ; Macbeth, 1:7 — ** Even handed Justice Commends the ingredients of 
the poisoned chalice To our own lips. ** 

The Emperor of Germany went to Paris Incognito and returned, thinking that no 
one had known of his absence. But at every step, going and coming, he was sur- 
rounded by detectives who saw that no harm came to him. The swallow drove again 
and again at the little struggling moth, but there was a plate glass window between 
them which neither one of them knew. Charles Darwin put his cheek against the 
plate glass of the cobra's cage, but could not keep himself from starting when the 
cobra struck. Tacitus, Annales, 14:5 — **Noctem sideribus illustrem, quasi oonvin- 
eendum ad seel us, dli pnebucre " — ** a night brilliant with stars, as if for the purpose 
of proving the crime, was granted by the gods. '* See F. A. Noble, Our Redemption, 
60-70, on the self-registry and self-disclosure of sin, with quotation from Daniel 
WolNiter's siK*cch in the case of Knapp at Salem : ** It must be confessed. It will be 
oonfessed. There is no refuge from confession but suicide, and suicide is confession. *' 

( a ) In cases of persistent iniquity, God's providence still compels the 
fdnner to a<uM)mpliHh the design with which he and all things have been 
creatod, niunoly, the manifestation of Ood's holiness. Even though he 
struggle uguinst O^od's ])]an, yet he must by his very resistance serve it. 
His sin is tiuulo itn own detector, judge, and tormentor. His character and 
doom arn iiumIo a warning to others. Befusing to glorify God in his salva- 
tion, ho is tumio to glorify God in his destruction. 

U 10 : 6, 7 •- " H4 Am/iIm, tb« rod of miu tagWi the itAff in whoM kand is bum indignation I . . . Iovbett» ho 
■mmmUi boI 00. " Cimrliv Klngnloy, Two Years Ago: ** He [ Treluddra ] is one of those 
Imiw} naturtiM, whom ra<*tonly lashoHinto greater fury,— a Pharaoh, whose heart the 
l^^rd liiiiii«Of (Mitonly hanlim " — hore we would add the qualification:* consistently 
with lliM UfiillN whiiih lut has Hi«t t4) the o|M>rations of his grace.' Pharaoh's ordering 
tht< lidHlriittMofi ofllio l«m<«Utiiih ohlMrpn (Kx. i:16) was made the means of putting 
Mimm iiiutitr roynl imiUnHUm, of training him for his future work, and finally of 
itmcuitig iliii whnln nitUnti whowi mhin Plinmoh sought to destroy. So Ood brings good 
iMit of ovll { mm Tylttf, TlMHilojry of ClrcH'k ISx'ts, 28-35. Emerson : •* My will fulfilled 
mUmII \h\ For \n ^uyUifUi ttn liiiliirh My lliiiitilorbolt has eyes tosoeHisway home to 
thu itmrk/' Kco hImh ICilwnrilM, WorhN, i i INK) 31S. 

titfl. N. Ift "iiftviMiraUt|rHof from hlmMirilMiitfiMipillUoiMd thopowon" — the hosts of evil spirits 
thul MWNrHMul iijiDii liliM III f Ii(«lr niml oiiw*! "ho modo a ihow of thorn oponly, triumphing otot thorn 
U ii," i, t ., Ill ihti niiwMi, f liiiM I iiriiliig llM«lr i«vll Into ii niraiis of good. Royce, Spirit of 
Mixioiii IMitliiiM»|»li|r, 44;), " t«iivi', HM'tilMir for iil»iM)liit4^ evil, is like an electric light 
uiigMSMt Ml Mimri>|iiii|| foi' n HliiMtow, wIm'ii Lovt* gi'ts thons the shadow has dis- 
fmm*^*** lluillilA MiMNiM, luriUmtiUHhliiirii nrr giMMl, but that "aU things vorktos«th« 



GOOD AND EVIL AKGELS. 443 

crgwd** (Bob. 8: 28) ~ God ovemilinfir 'or firood that which in itself is only evlL John 
Wesley : *• God buries his workmen, but carries on his work. " Sermon on " The Devil's 
Mistakes " : Satan thou^rht he could overcome Christ in the wilderness, in the garden, 
on the cross. He triumphed when he cast Paul into prison. But the cross was to Christ 
a lifting up, that should draw all men to him ( John 12 : 82 ), and PauTs imprisonment fur- 
nished his epistles to the New Testament. 

*' It is one of the wonders of divine love that even our blemishes and sins God will 
take when we truly repent of them and give them into his hands, and will in some way 
make them to be blessings. A friend once showed Kuskin a costly handkerchief on 
which a blot of ink had been made. * Nothing can be done with that,* the friend 
said, thinking the handkerchief worthless and ruined now. Ruskin carried it away 
with him, and after a time sent it back to his friend. In a most skilful and artistic way, 
he had made a fine design in India ink, using the blot as its basis. Instead of being 
ruined, the handkerchief was made far more beautiful and valuable. So God takes the 
blots and stains upon our lives, the disfiguring blemishes, when we commit them to 
him, and by his marvellous grace changes them into marks of beauty. David's 
grievous sin was not only forgiven, but was made a transforming power in his life. 
Peter's pitiful fall became a step upward through his Lord's forgiveness and gentle 
dealing. " So ** men may rise on stepping stones Of their dead selves to higher things " 
( Tennyvon, In Memorlam, I ). 



SECTION IV. — GOOD AND EVIL ANGELS. 

As ministers of divine providence there is a class of finite beings, greater 
in intelligence and power than man in his present state, some of whom 
positively serve God's purpose by holiness and voluntary execution of his 
will, some negatively, by giving examples to the universe of defeated and 
punished rebeUion, and by iUustrating God*s distinguishing grace in man's 
salvation. 

The scholastic subtleties which encumbered this doctrine in the Middle 
Ages, and the exaggerated representations of the power of evil spirits 
which then prevailed, have led, by a natural reaction, to an undue depre- 
ciation of it in more recent times. 

For scholastic discussions, see Thomas Aquinas, Summa ( ed. Migne ), 1 : 833-093. The 
scholastics debated the qu<^ions, how many angels could stand at once on the point of 
a needle ( relation of angels to space ) ; whether an angel could be in two places at the 
same time ; how great was the interval between the creation of angels and their fall ; 
whether the sin of the first angel caused the sin of the rest ; whether as many retained 
their integrity as fell ; whether our atmosphere is the place of punishment for fallen 
angels ; whether guardian-angels have charge of children from baptism, from birth, 
or while the infant is yet in the womb of the mother ; even the excrements of angels 
were subjects of discussion, for if there was "angels' fbod" (Ps. 78:25), and if angels ate 
(6«n. 18: 3), it was argued that we must take the logical consequences. 

Dante makert the creation of angels simultaneous with that of the universe at large. 
^*The f^ll of the rebel angels he considers to have taken place within twenty seconds of 
their creation, and to have originated in the pride which made Lucifer unwilling to 
await the time prefixed by his Maker for enlightening him with perfect knowledge " — 
see Rossetti, Shadow of Dante, 14, 15. Milton, unlike Dante, puts the creation of angels 
ages before the creation of man. He tells us that Satan's first name in heaven is now 
lost. The sublime associations with which Milton surrounds the adversary diminish 
our abhorrence of the evil one. Satan has been called the hero of the Paradise Lost. 
Dante's representation is much more true to Scripture. But we must not go to the 
extreme of giving ludicrous designations to the devil. This indicates and causes 
sct^pticism as to his existence. 

In mediseval times men's minds were weighed down by the terror of the spirit of 
evlL It was thought possible to sell one's soul to Satan, and such compacts were 



444 THE WORKS OF OOD. 

written with blood. Ooethe represents Mephlstopheles as saying to IVrast : ** I to thy 
service here a«rree to bind me. To run and never rest at call of thee ; When aver yonder 
thou Shalt find me. Then thou shalt do as much for me." The cathedrals cultivated 
and perpetuated this superstition, by the fltniros of maliarnant demons which grinned 
from the flrargroyies of their roofs and the capitals of their columns, and popular preach- 
ing exalted Satan to the rank of a rival god — a god more feared than was the true and 
living God. Satan was pictured as ha\ing horns and hoofs— an image of the sensual 
and bestial— which led Cuvicr to remark that the adversary could not devour, beoause 
horns and hoofs indicated not a carnivorous but a ruminant quadruped. 

But there is certainly a posedbilitj that the asoending scale of created 
intelligenceB does not reach its topmost point in man. As the distance 
between man and the lowest forms of life is filled in with numberless gra- 
dations of being, so it is possible that between man and God there exist 
creatores of higher than human intelligence. This possibility is turned to 
certainty by the express declarations of Scripture. The doctrine is inter- 
woven with the later as well as with the earlier books of revelation. 

Quenstedt (Theol., 1:029) regards the existence of angels as antecedently probable, 
because there are no gaps in creation ; nature does not proceed per aaUum. As we 
have ( 1 ) beings purely corporeal, as stones; (2) beings partly corporeal and partly 
spiritual, as men : so wo should expect in creation (3) beings wholly spiritual, asangela. 
Oodet, in his Biblical Studies of the O. T., 1-29, suggests another series of gradations. 
As wo have (1) vegetables— species without individuality; (3) animals —individuality 
in bondage to species ; and ( 3 ) men — species overpowered by individuality : so we may 
expect ( 4 ) angels— individuality without species. 

If souls live after death, there is certainly a class of disembodied spirits. It is not 
impossible that God may have creut^xi spirits without bodies. £. G. Kobinson, Chris- 
tian Theology, 110— "The existence of lesser deities in all heathen mythologies, and 
the disposition of man everywhere to believe in beings superior to himself and inferior 
to the supremo God, is a presumptive argument in favor of their existence." Locke: 
*" That there should be more species of Intelligent creatures alK>vo us than there are of 
sensible and material below us, is probable to me from hence, that in all the visible 
and corporeal world we see no chasms and gape.*' Foster, Christian Life and Theology, 
193 — ** A man may certainly believe in the existence of angels upon the testimony of 
one who claims to have come from the heavenly world, if he can believe in the Ornith- 
orhjrncus upon the testimony of travelers." Tennyson, Two Voices: "This truth 
within thy mind rehearse, That in a boundless universe Is boundless better, boundless 
worse. Think you this world of hopes and fears Could find no statelier than his peers 
In yonder hundred million spheres ? " 

The doctrine of angels affords a barrier against the false conception of this world as 
including the whole spiritual universe. Earth is only part of a larger organism. As 
Christianity has united Jew and Gentile, so hereafter will it blend our own and other 
orders of creation : CoL 2 : 10 — " who is the head of all prindpality and power " — Christ is the head of 
angels as well as of men ; IplL i : iO — " to sum ap all things in Christ, the things in the hearens^ and the things 
Mfm tkt eulL" On Christ and Angels, see Robertson Smith In The Expositor, second 
i^^iircs, vols. 1. 2, 3. On the gtmeral subj?ct of angels, sec also W'bately, Good and Evil 
Angels; Twcsten, transl. in Bib. Sac, 1 :768, and 2:106; Philippi, Glaubenslehre, S: 282- 
397, and 3 : 251-354; liirks. Difficulties of Belief, 78 sq. ; Scott, Existence of E\il Spirits; 
§i*fn4m* KncyclopKdie, arts.: Engel, Teufel; Jewett, Diabolology,— the Person and 
KitHi^*^ *'^ Satan ; Alexander, Demonic Possession. 

J, B^3iFTrBE Btateicents and Imtdcatigns. 
J, A'l i^f if^i nature and attributes of angels, 
iaf 'Duty are created beings. 

ftU/i^ -" tmusi J« his, all his angels .... For he oommanded, and thej were ereated '* ; Ool.l:16~*'ibr 

. . . whfthcr thrones or dominions or phncipalitiei or povert*' : cf. i Pet 3 : tt— 
li ptvws." God alone is uncreated and eternaL This is implied in 
iMkiBMCtality.'* 




SCRIPTURE STATEMENTS AND INTIMATIONS. 445 

(6) Thej are incorporeal beings. 

In laK 1 :14, where a single word is used to designate angels, they are described as 
•9iiit8"--"ar«th«7iiot*llminiitormgipiriU?" Men, with their twofold nature, material as 
well as immaterial, could not well l)C designated as ** ipihtiL** That their being character- 
istically "ij^ts" forbids us to regard angels as having a bodily organism, seems implied 
in IpL 6: 12— "for ovvnitUnfii not agiiostflMh and blood, bat against .... tb«ipiritaalbocta[or 'thlngi'] 
rfviokidnMsintbehoaTenlyplaeM"; cf, BpLl:8; 2:8. In 6tn.6:2, "lona of God"— , not angels, but 
descendants of Seth and worshipers of the true Ood (see Murphy, Com., in loco). In 
Pi 78:25 (A. V.), "angoli* Ibod" — manna coming from heaven where angels dwell; better, 
however, read with Rev. Vers. : "bread of tbo mighty "—probably meaning angels, though 
the word "mighty" is nowhere else applied to them; possibly—*' bread of princes or 
nobles, '* i. e., the finest, most delicate bread. Hat. 22 : 30 — " mithir many, nor ax« giren in marriaga, 
bnt are ai angela in hoaren "— andLiika20:36 — " neither oan they die an j moro : ibr the j ar« eqoal nnto tho angels ' ' 
—imply only that angels are without distinctions of sex. Saints are to be like angels, 
not as being incorporeal, but as not having the same sexual relations which they have 
here. 

There are no ^* souls of angels,** as there are " tools of men " ( Rer. 18 : 13 ), and we may infer 
that angels have no bodies for souls to inhabit ; see under Essential Elements of Human 
Nature. Nevius, Demon-Possession, 258, attributes to evil spirits an instinct or longing 
for a body to possess, even though it be the body of an inferior animal : ** So in Script- 
ure we have spirits represented as wandering about to seek rest in bodies, and asking 
permission to enter into swine " ( Mat 12 : 43 ; 8 : 31 ). Angels therefore, since they have no 
bodies, know nothing of growth, age, or death. Martensen, Christian Dogmatics, 183 — 
^ It is precisely because the angejs are only spirits, but not souls, that they cannot 
possess the same rich existence as man, whose soul is the point of union in which spirit 
and nature meet," 

( c ) They are personal — that is, intelligent and voluntary — agents. 

2Sam.i4:20— "wise,aeeordingtothe wisdom of an angel of God " ; Lnke4:34 — '*! knov thee vho thon art, the 
loljOneof God"; 2 Tim. 2 : 26 — " snare of the deril .... taken oaptire by him onto his will"; BeT.22:9 — 
"Seethondoitnot" —exercise of will; Bar. 12:12— "The deril is gone down onto yon, hsTing great wrath'* 

— set purpose of evil. 

(d) They are possessed of superhuman intelligence and power, yet an 
intelligence and power that has its fixed limits. 

Hat 24 : 36 — " of that day and hoar knoweth no one, not eren the angels of hearen** « their knowledge, 
though superhuman, is yet finite. 1 Pet. 1 : 12— " which things angels desire to look into " ; Ps. 103 : 20 

— "angels .... mighty in strength " ; 2Thess. 1 : 7 — " the angels of his power" ; 2 Pet 2 : 11 — " angels, though 
greater [than men] in might and power" ; Rer. 20:2, 10 — "laid hold on the dragon .... and boond him . . . 
. . east into the like of lire." Compare Ps. 72:18 — "God .... Who only doeth wondrous things" —only 
Ood can perform miracles. Angels are imperfect compared with Gk>d (Job 4:18; 15:15; 
25:5). 

Power, rather than beauty or intelligence, is their striking characteristic. They are 
'prineipalities and powers " ( Col. 1 : 16 ). They terrify those who behold them ( Hat. 28 : 4 ). The 
rolling away of the stone from the sepulchre took strength. A wheel of granite, eight 
feet in diameter and one foot thick, rolling in a groove, would weigh more than four 
tons. Mason, Faith of the Gospel, 86—*' The spiritual might and burning indignation in 
the face of Stephen reminded the guilty Sanhedrin of an angelic vision.'* Even in their 
tendercst ministrations they strengthen ( Lake 22 : 43 ; cf. Dan. 10 : 19 ). In 1 Tim. 6 : 15 — " King 
of kings and Lord of lords " — the words " kings " and " lords " ( PaaiXtvovnay and Kvpitv6irriav ) may 
refer to angels. In the case of evil spirits especially, power seems the chief thing in 
mind, e, g., " the prince of this world," "the strong man armed,** " the power of darknea^" "mlers of the dsrkness 
of this world." "the great dragon." "aU the power of the enemy," "all these things will I giro thee," "daUrer na 
from the evil one.** 

(e) They are an order of intelligences distinct from man and older 
than man. 

Angels are distinct from man. 1 Cor. 6 : 3 — " we shall judge angels " ; leb. 1 : 14 — "ire tiiey not all 
mini5tering spirits, sent forth to do serrice for the sake of them that shall inherit salration ? " They are not 
glorified human spirits ; see Heb. 2 : 16 — " for rerily not to angels doth he giro help, but he gireth help to 



446 THE WORKS OF OOD. 

tke leed of ibnhiun" ; also 12 : 22, 23, where "th« innuBcnU* koita «f angels" t6re disttngruished from 
** th6 ehonh of tho firstborn " and " the ipiriti of just man madi porfoet" In K«t. 22 : 9 — " I am a faUow-nrrant 
vith thoo" — "fellov-aarrant" intimates likeness to men, not in nature, but in service and 
subordination to God, the proper object of worship. Sunday School Times, Mch. Ifi, 
1000 : 146— '^Angels are spoken of as greater in power and might than man, but that 
could be said of many a lower animal, or even of whirlwind and fire. Angels are never 
spoken of as a superior order of spiritual beings. We are to ' Jndgo angtli ' ( i Oor. 6 : 8 ), and 
inferiors are not to Judge superiors.** 

Angels are an order of intelligences older than man. The Fathers made the creation 
of angels simultaneous with the original calling into being of the elements, perhaps 
basing their opinion on the apocryphal Ecclesiasticus, 18 : 1 — ** he that liveth eternally 
created all things together.** In Job 38 : 7, the Hebrews parallelism makes " monung stan "— 
"sons of God," so that angels are spoken of as present at certain stages of God's creative 
work. The mention of "tho lerpent" in Gen. 3 : 1 implies the fall of Satan before the fall of 
man. We may Infer that the creation of angels took place before the creation of man 
~ the lower before the higher. In Gon. 2 : i, " all the host of them," whioh God had created, may 
be intended to include angels. Man was the crowning work of creation, created after 
angels were created. Mason, Faith of the Gospel, 81 — ** Angels were perhaps created 
before the material heavens and earth— a spiritual substratum in which the material 
things were planted, a preparatory creation to receive what was to follow. In the vis- 
ion of Jacob they ascend first and descend after ; their natural place is in the world 
below." 

The conBtant representatioii of angels as personal beings in Scripture 
cannot be explained as a personification of abstract good and evil, in accom- 
modation to Jewish superstitions, without wresting many narrative passages 
from their obvious sense ; implying on the part of Christ either dissimu- 
lation or ignorance as to an important point of doctrine ; and surrendering 
belief in the ins^Diration of the Old Testament from which these Jewish 
views of angelic beings were derived. 

Jesus aooommodatcd himself to the popular belief in respect at least to " ibiaham'i bonm '* 
( Lake 16 : 22 ), and he confessed ignorance with regard to the time of the end ( Hark 13 : 32 ) ; 
see Rush Kbees, Life of Jesus of Nazareth, 245-248. But in the former case his hearers 
probably understood him to speak figuratively and rhetorically, while in the latter case 
there was no teaching of the false but only limitation of knowledge with regard to the 
true. Our Lord did not hesitate to contradict Pharisaic belief in the efficacy of cere- 
monies, and Sadduoean denial of resurrection and future life. The doctrine of angels 
bad even stronger hold upon the popular mind than had these errors of the Pharisees 
and Badducees. That Jesus did not correct or deny the general belief, but rather him- 
self expreascHi and confirmed it, implies that the belief was rational and Scriptural. 
For one of the best statements of the argument for the existence of evil spirits, see 
Bn>udUH, Com. on Mat 8 : 28. 

Eph. 3 : 10 — " to the intont that now onto the prlndpalitiit and tho povon ia. tho hoarenlj phoes mi^t bo made known. 
through the ehoroh the manifold wiidom of Ood " —excludes the hypothesis that angels are simply 
alMtract conceptions of goo<l or evil. We speak of ** moon-struck " people ( lunatics), 
only when we know that nobody supposes us to believe in the power of the moon to 
cause madness. But Christ's contemporaries did suppose him to believe in angelic 
spirits, good and evil. If this boliof was an error, it was by no means a harmless one, 
and the benevolence as well as the veracity of Christ would have led him to correct it. 
So too, if Paul had known that there were no such beings as angels, he could not hon- 
estly have contented himself with forbidding the Colossians to worship them (CoL 2: 18), 
but would have denied their existence, as he denied the existence of heathen gods 
(1 Cor. 8: 4). 

Theodore Parker said it was very evident that Josus Christ believed in a personal 
devil. Hariiack, Weson des Christenthums, 35— ''There can be no doubt that Jesus 
8han>d with his contemporaries the n«i>reflent(ition of two kingdoms, the kingdom of 
God and the kingdom of the devil/* Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, 1 : 104— Jesus ** makes 
it api)oar as if Satan was the imme<liate tempter. I am far fn)m thinking that he does 
so in a merely figurative way. Ik^yond all doubt Jesus accepted the contemporary 
idc«s as to tlie seal exlstonoo of Satan, and ac(M)rdingly, in the particular coses of dis- 

r\~' — ^ """"■" 



SCRIPTURE STA^TEMENTS AND INTIMATIOITS. 447 

ass, 84 —** Tho acknowledgment of an evil spirit is characteristio of Christianity/' H. B. 
Smith, System, 261— "It would appear that the power of Satan in the world reached 
its culminating' point at the time of Christ, and has been less ever since.** 

The same remark applies to the view which regards Satan as but a ool- 
lective term for all evil beings, human or superhuman. The Scripture 
representations of the progressive rage of the great adversary, from his first 
assault on human virtue in Genesis to his final overthrow in Bevelation, 
join with the testimony of Christ just mentioned, to forbid any other con- 
clusion than this, that there is a personal being of great power, who carries 
on organized opposition to the divine government. 

Crane, The Religion of To-morrow, 299 sq.— " We well say * personal devil,' for there 
is no devil but personality.'* We cannot deny the personality of Satan except upon 
principles which would compel us to deny the existence of good angels, the personality 
of the Holy Spirit, and the personality of God the Father, —we may add, even the per- 
sonality of the human soul. Says Nigel Penruddock in Lord Beaconsfleld's ^* Endym- 
ion'*: ** Give me a single argument against his [Satan's] personality, which is not 
applicable to the personality of the Deity." One of the most ingenious devices of 
Satan is that of persuading men that he has no existence. Next to this is the device of 
substituting for belief in a personal devil the belief in a merely impersonal spirit of evil. 
Such a substitution we find in Pfleiderer, Philosophy of Religion, 1 : 311 — **The idea of 
the devil was a welcome expedient for the need of advanced religious reflection, to 
put God out of relation to the evil and badness of the world." Pfleiderer tells us that 
the early optimism of the Hebrews, like that of the Greeks, gave place in later times 
to pessimism and despair. But the Hebrews still had hope of deliverance by the 
Messiah and an apocalyptic reign of good. 

For the view that Satan is merely a collective term for all evil beings, see Bushnell, 
Nature and the Supernatural, 184-137. Bushnell, holding moral evil to be a necessary 
** condition privative " of all finite beings ae such, believes that "good angels have all 
been passed through and helped up out of a fall, as the redeemed of mankind will be." 
" El86t angds *' ( 1 Tim. 5 : 21 ) then would mean those saved after falling, not those saved from 
falling ; and "Satan " would be, not the name of a particular person, but the all or total 
of all bad minds and powers. Per contra, see Smith's Bible Dictionary, arts. : Angels, 
Demons, Demoniacs, Satan ; Trench, Studies in tho Gospels, 16-26. For a comparison 
of Satan in the Book of Job, with Milton's Satan in *^ Paradise Lost," and Goethe's 
Mephistopheles in *' Faust," see Masson, The Three DeviK We may add to this list 
Dante's Satan (or Dis) in the "Divine Comedy," Byron's Lucifer in "Cain," and Mrs. 
Browning's Lucifer in her *' Drama of Exile " ; see Gregory, Christian Ethics, 219. 

2. As to ifieir number and organization, 

( a ) They are of great multitude. 

Deut 33 : 2— "Jehorah .... eame from the tan Uioosands ofholj oan" ; Ps. 68 : 17 — " The eliarioto of God art 
twentj thoiuand, eren thoas&ndi upon thoasands " ; Dan. 7 : 10 — " thonaands of thoosands ministered onto lum, and ten 
thoQiand timet ten thootand itood before Um " ; Rer. 5 : 11 — "I heard a roioe of manj angelt .... and the number 
of them vat ten thousand times ten thoos&nd, and thousands of thontanda." Ansclm thought that the 
number of lost angels was tilled up by the number of elect men. Savage, Life after 
Death, 61— The Pharisees held very exaggerated notions of the number of angelic 
spirits. They ** said that a man, if he threw a stone over his shoulder or cast away a 
broken piece of pottery, asked pardon of any spirit that ho might possibly have hit in so 
doing." So in W. H. H. Murray's time it was said to be dangerous in the Adirondack 
to fire a gun,— you might hit a man. 

(5) They constitute a company, as distinguished from a race. 

Mat 22 : 30 — "thej neither marry, nor art given in marriage, but art as angels in htaTtn " ; Luke 20 : 36 — 
" neither can thej die anj more : for thej art equal unto the angels; and art sons of God.*' We are called "sons 
ofmen," but angels are never called "sons of angels," but only "s(msof God.'* They are not 
developed from one original stock, and no such common nature binds them together as 
binds together the race of man. They have no common character and history. Each 
was created separately, and each apostate angel fell by himself. Humanity fell all at 



448 THE WOBKS OF GOD. 

onoe in its first father. Cut down a tree, and you cut down Its branoiies. But angels 
were so many separate trees. Some lapsed into sin, but some remained holy. See Gk>det, 
Bib. Studies O. T., 1-39. This may be one reason why salvation was provided for fallen 
man, but not for fallen angels. Christ could Join himself to humanity by taking the 
common nature of all. There was no common nature of angels which ho could take. 
See laK 2 : 16 — " nol to angels doth he fpJ9 kelp.'* The angels are " mos of God," as having no earthly 
parentage and no parentage at all except the divine. 1^ 3 : 14, 15 — "tke naker, «f vImbi ereiy 
&tberiiood in Imm end on eerth is named,"— not " erery fiunilj," as in R. V., for there are no families 
aiuong the angels. The marginal rendering "CUhcrimd" is better than "fiunilj." —all the 
irarpuu are named from the iranjp. Dodge, Christian Theology, 172 — ** The bond between 
angels is simply a mental and moral one. They can gain nothing by inheritance, noth- 
ing through domestic and family life, nothing through a society held together by a bond 
of blood. . . . Belonging to two worlds and not simply to one, the human soul has in it 
the springs of a deeper and wider experience than angels can have. . . . God comes 
nearer to man than to his angels.*' Newman Smyth, Through Science to Faith, 101— 
^* In the resurrection life of man, the species has died ; man the individual lives on. Sex 
shall be no more needed for the sake of life ; they shall no more marryt but men and 
women, the children of marriage, shall be as the angels. Through the death of the 
human species shall be gained, as the consummation of all, the immortality of the 
individuals.'* 

( c ) Thej are of yarions ranks and endowments. 

CoLi :16 — "thrones or dnmintims or prindpalitifls or powen"; IThess. 4: 16— "thtToleo ofthear^angel**; 
Jade 9 — ** Michael the archangel." Michael ( — who is like God ? ) is the only one expressly called 
an archangel in Scripture, although Gabriel (— God's hero ; has been called an arch- 
angel by Milton. In Scripture, Michael seems the messenger of law and Judgment ; 
Gabriel, the messenger of mc;rcy and promise. The fact that Scripture has but one 
archangel is proof that its doctrine of angels was not, as has sometimes been charged, 
derived from Babylonian and Persian sources; for there we find seven archangels 
instead of one. There, moreover, we find the evil spirit enthroned as a god, while in 
Scripture he is represented as a trembling slave. 

Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, 1 :51 — **The devout and trustful consciousness of the 
immediate nearness of God, which is expressed in so many beautiful utterances of the 
Psalmist, appears to be supplanted in later Judaism by a belief in angels, which is 
closely analogous to the superstitious belief in the saints on the part of the Romish 
church. It is very significant that the Jews in the time of Jesus could no longer con- 
ceive of the promulgation of the law on Sinai, which was to them the foundation of 
their whole religion, as an immediate revelation of Jehovah to Moses, except as insti- 
tuted through the mediation of angels ( iets 7 : 38, 58 ; GaL 3 : 19 ; leb. 2 : 2 ; Josephus, Ant.* 
15:5,3). 

(d) They have an organization. 

1 Sam. 1 : 11 — " Jehorah of hosts " ; 1 1. 22 : 19— '* Jehorah sitting on his thnme, and all the host of hesTtn standing 
by him on his right hand and on his left" ; Hat. 26 : 53— "twelre legions of angels" —suggests the organ- 
ization of the lloman army ; 25 : 41 — " the deril and his angels " ; Eph. 2 : 2 — " the prinoe of the powers 
in the air" ; ReT. 2 : 13 - "Satan's throne" ( not "seat" ) ; 16 : 10 — "throne of the beast" — "a hellish par- 
ody of the heavenly kingdom " ( Trench ). The phrase "host of heaven," in Dent 4 : 19 ; 17 : 3 ; 
iets 7 : 42, probably — the stars ; but in Gen. 32 : 2, " God's host " —angels, for when Jacob saw 
the angels he said " This is God's host." In general the phrases '^od of hosts ", "Lord of hosts " seem 
to mean " God of angels ", ** Lord of angels ** : compare 2 Chron. 18 : 18; Luke 2 : 13 ; Rot. 19 : 14 
— " the armies which are in heaven." Yet in Heh. 9 : 6 and Ps. 33 : 6 the word "host" seems to include 
both angels and stars. 

Satan is " the ape of God. ** He has a throne. He is "the prinoe of the world " (John 14 : 30 ; 
16 : 11 ;, " the prinoe of the powers of the air " ( Eph. 2:2). There is a cosmos and order of evil, as 
well as a cosmos and order of good, though Christ is stronger thim the strong man 
armed (Luke 11 : 21 ) and rules even over Satan. On Satan in the Old Testament, 8c.« art. 
by T. W. Chambers, in Presb. and Ref. Rev., Jan. 1898 : 23-34. The first mention of Satan 
is in the aet'ount of the Fall in Gen. 3 : 1-15 ; the second in Lev. 16 : 8, where one of the two 
goats on the day of atonement is said to be "for iiasel,'' or Satan ; the third where Satan 
moved David to number Israel (1 Chron. 21 : 1 ) ; the fourth in the book of Job 1 : 6-12 ; the 
fifth in Zech. 3 : 1-3, where Satan stands as the adversary of Joshua the high priest, but 
Jehovah addresses Satan and rebukes him. Cheyne, Com. on Isaiah, vol. I, p. 11, thinks 




SCRIPTURE STATEMENTS AND INTIMATIONS. 449 

that the stars were first called the hosts of God, with the notion that they were ani- 
mated creatures. In later times the belief in angels threw into the baokgrround the 
belief in the stars as animated beings ; the angels however were connected very closely 
with the stars. Marlowe, in his Tamburlaine, says : ** The moon, the planets, and the 
meteors light. These angels in their crystal armor fight A doubtful battle.** 

With regard to the * cherabim' of Genesis, Exodus, and Ezekiel, — with 
which the ' seraphim ' of Isaiah and the * living creatures ' of the book of 
Revelation are to be identified, — the most probable interpretation is that 
which regards them, not as actual beings of higher rank than man, but as 
symbolic appearances, intended to represent redeemed humanity, endowed 
with all the creature perfections lost by the Fall, and made to be the 
dwelling-place of €k)d. 

Some have held that the cherubim are Sjrmbols of the divine attributes, or of God's 
government Over nature ; see Smith's Bib. Diet., art. : Cherub : Alford, Com. on Rtr. 4 : 
M, and Hulsean Lectures, 1841 : vol. 1, Lect. 2 ; Ebrard, Dogmatik, 1 : 278. But whatever 
of truth belongs to this view may be included in the doctrine stated above. The 
cherubim are indeed ssrmbols of nature pervaded by the divine energy and subordinated 
to the divine purposes, but they are symbols of nature only because they are symbols 
of man in his twofold capacity of image of God and priegt of nctture. Man, as having a 
body, is a part of nature ; as having a soul, he emerges from nature and gives to nature 
a voice. Through man, nature, otherwise blind and dead, j^ able to appreciate and to 
express the Creator's glory. 

The doctrine of the cherubim embraces the following points : 1. The cherubim are 
not personal beings, but are artificial, temporary, symbolic figures. 2. While they are 
not themselves personal existences, they are symbols of personal existence— symbols 
not of divine or angelic i>erfections but of human nature (Ex. i : 5 — " thqr lutd the likeaen of a 
man " ; Rer. 5 : 9— A. V.— " thoa hast redeemed na to God bj thj blood " — so read K, B, and Tregellee ; 
the Eng. and Am. Rev. Vers., however, follow A and Tischendorf, and omit the word 
" OS " ). 3. They arc emblems of human nature, not in its present stage of development, 
but possessed of all its original perfections ; for this reason the most perfect animal 
forms — the kinglike courage of the lion, the patient service of the ox, the soaring 
insight of the eagle — are combined with that of man ( Ii. 1 and 10 ; Rev. 4:6-9). 4. These 
cherubic forms represent., not merely material or earthly perfections, but human 
nature spiritualized and sanctified. They are " lirin; ereatnns " and their life is a holy life 
of obedience to the divine will (Ii.i: 12— "whither the spirit vaa to go, thej vent"). 5. They 
symbolize a human nature exalted to be the dwelling-place of God. Hence the Inner 
curtains of the tabernacle were inwoven with cherubic figures, and Ood's glory was 
manifested on the mercy-seat between the cherubim (Ix. 37: 6-9). While the flaming 
sword at the gates of Eden was the symbol of justice, the cherubim were ssrmbols of 
mercy— keeping the "waj of the tree of life" for man, until by sacrifice and renewal 
Paradise should be regained ( Gen. 8 : 24 ). 

In corroboration of this general view, note that angels and cherubim never go 
together ; and that In the closing visions of the book of Revelation these symbolic forms 
are seen no longer. When redeemed humanity has entered heaven, the figures which 
typified that humanity, having served their purpose, finally disappear. For fuller 
elaboration, see A. H. Strong. The Nature and Purpose of the Cherubim, in Philosophy 
and Religion, 391-399 ;Palrbalm, Typology, 1 : 185-308 ; Elliott, Horse Apocalypticee, 1 : 87 ; 
Bib. Sac, 1876: 82-61; Bib. Com., 1 : 49-62— *' The winged lions, eagles, and bulls, that 
guard the entrances of the palace of Nineveh, are worshipers rather than divinities.*' 
It has lately been shown that the winged bull of Assyria was called ** Kerub ** almost as 
far back as the time of Moses. The word appears in its Hebrew form 600 years before 
the Jews had any contact with the Persian dominion. The Jews did not derive it from 
any Aryan race. It belonged to their own language. 

The variable form of the cherubim seems to prove that they are sjrmbolic appearances 
rather than real beings. A parallel may be found in classical literature. In Horace, 
Carmina, S: 11, 15^ Cerberus has throe heads ; in 2 : 13, 84, he has a hundred. Br6al, 
Semantics suggests that the three heads may be dog-heads, while the hundred heads 
may be snake-heads. But Cerberus Is also represented in Greece as having only one 
head. Cerberus must therefore be a symbol rather than an actually existing creature. 
H. W Congdon of Wyoming, N. Y., hold, however, that the <:herublm are symbols of 

29 






450 THE WORKS OF GOD. 

God's Ufe in the universe as a whole. 1l a:14-»— "tta wmoM cteib Oit «oma** -the 
power of the Kingr of Tyre was so all-perradinir throughout his dominion, his 
sovereignty so absolute, and his decrees so instantly obeyed, that his rule resembled 
the divine government over the world. Mr. Gon^on regarded the cherubim as a proof 
of monism. See Mar^liouth, The Lord's Prayer. 150-180. On animal charaoteristics 
in man, see Hopkins, Scriptural Idea of Man, 106. 

8. A a to their moral c?iar<icter, 

(a) They were all created holy. 

0«Li:31 — "Mmw tTVTtUag that ba kad mad^ ud. bthoU. it vmt«7sm4"; Jadt6— "a^vb tkat kipt 
Bot tbiir ovB baginniiig " — ipxnv seems here to mean their be^rinniiiff in holy character, rather 
than their orifirinal lord^Jiip and dominion. 

( 5 ) They had a probatioiL. 

ThisweinferfromiTfm.5:21 — "tksalMtaagda**; e/.i FM. 1:1,2— "«U0t....iuitoobedi«iiO8.'* If 
certain ang-els, like certain men, arc "alaet .... unto obadiaiM^ " it would seem to follow 
that there was a period of probation, durinflr which their obedience or disobedience 
determined their future destiny ; see Ellicott on 1 Tib. 5 : 2L Mason, F^th of the Gospel, 
106-106— "OoL 8:14— 'BaeaaMtluni hast doiMthia,«UB8daTtthoa'— in the sentence on the serpent, 
seems to imply that Satan's day of grace was ended when he seduced man. Thence- 
forth ho was driven to live on dust, to triumph only in sin, to pick up a li\ing out of 
man, to possess man's body or soul, to tempt from the good." 

( c ) Some preserved their integrity. 

Pi.89:7— "theooaodlofthe holj onti"— a deslfirnatlpn of angels; Hark 8: 38— "the holj aagala.'* 
Shakespeare, Macbeth, 4:3—** Angels are bright still, though the brightest felL" 

( ef ) Some fell from their state of innocence. 

John 8 : 44 — "He vas a murderer from the beginniog, and itandeth not in the tnth, beeaue there is no tnith in 
him "; 2 Pet. 2 : 4 — "angels when tbej sinned " ; Jade 6 — "angels who kept not their ovn beginning, bat loft their 
proper habitation." Shakespeare, Henry VIII, 3:2— ** Cromwell, 1 charge thee, fling 
n wiiy ambit ion ; ISy that sin fell the angels ; how can man then. The image of his Maker, 
lioiM) to win by it? ... . How wretched Is that poor man that hangs on princes* 
liivors I . . • . When ho falls, ho falls like Lucifer, Never to hope again." 

( r. ) The good are confirmed in good. 

Ilat,6:10 --"Thjwillbedone,uinheaTan,iooiiearth'*;18:10— "inbeaTU their angels do always behold tht 
(kee of mj Pather who is in hearen " ; 2 Oor. 11 : 14— "an aogol of light** 

(/) Th« evil are confirmed in eviL 

Mat. 12tl«*"lhe efil ooo" ; 1 John 5: 18. 19 — "the otU one tooeheth Urn not ... . the whole world listh in tht 
evil one " I r/. John 8 ; 44 — " Te art of yoor Ikther the deril .... When he speaketh a lie, he speaktth tf his own: 
fW he II a liar, and the Ihther thereof" ; MaU 6 : 18 — " delirer as from the eril one." 

I<*i'iiiii th(*M« H<*rlp(uml stiitomcnts wo infor that all free creatures pass through a 
|h«H(m1 of prolHtiloni that pn^Hition does not necessarily involve a fall; that there Is 
poMlhlii a Hliil(«iif1i*vnlopmt*nt of moral beings. Other Scriptures seem to intimate that 
( hi* i'itv(«lnUtMi of OimI In (Christ Is an object of interest and wonder to other orders of 
liil«illlirt*iutt«Uiitn our own ; ihntthoy an« drawn in Christ more closely to God and to us; 
III nlmr^ that ilioy nn* <M>nflrmf»<l in their int«»grlty by the cross. See 1 Pei 1:12— "which 
lhlii||« anK«li deilre to leoh Inlo " ; Iph. 8 : 10 " that now nnto the principalities and the powers in the hearenlj plaoet 
mlitkl be Made knows thmuf h the ohur«h the maaifbd wiiidom of God " ; OoL 1 : 20 - "throogh him to reeoooilo all 
Iklrti* Hhit himself , , , , whether thinr* upon the earlh, or things in th^heoTens"; Iph. 1:10— "to somap all things 
111 (thi tel, the thlnie In the h«4y«na, and the things upon the earth "* *• t ho nnilUnit ion of the whole universe 
III I *liiiiit Nn flu* ill vliift mml I'ls . • . . Tli(« griHit systoin is u harp all whose strings are in 
liMiit liMli niiit, Willi (liNi OIII1 Jiining Mrliig iniikiHi dimnml thrt>UKhout the whole. The 
wImiIm Miitvi'iwi fllmll fi^>l (liti iMlhii'iH'i*, mid HhiilllH' rtHhu^Hlto harmony, when that 
iiiiu Hlrliiifi I lilt wiMlil III w)il(*li wit Itvo, shnll bo put In tunc by the hand of love and 
lliit|iij|r •• ritmly i|I|(»Iim1 fiiiiii t<««lloh, thnVn (Hory In tho lUni\n»n», 827-330. 

M l« iinl IiiiimmhIIiIii \\\^\ {UA N iiflliig (hlmmrth as a bntMliiur-ground from which to 
l«lM iittiMiilvtimt. Mmi'K lltipkliis, UtfS, 1117— ''WhUo there shaU be gathered at 



SOBIPTURB STATBMBNTS AND IKTIMATIOKS, 451 

last and preseired, as Paul says, a holy church, and every man shall be perfect and the 
church shall be spotless, .... there will be other forms of perfection in other depart- 
ments of the universe. And when the ^roat day of restitution shall come and Ood 
shall vindicate his government, there may be seen to be comin^r In from other depart- 
ments of the universe a lonsr procession of angelic forma, great white legions from 
ShriuB, from Arcturus and the chambers of the South, gatherlDff around the throne 
of God and that centre around which the universe revolves." 

4. A8to their employments. 

A. The employments of good angels. 

(a) Thej stand in the presence of God and worship him. 

Pl 29:1, 8 — "iMribe oato Jahonk, ye mos ofthsiDighty, AisrilM unto JehoTah gkry and itnogtL iMribe unto 
Monk tk0 glory duo uito kit bum. ▼onhip Jehonk in koly anmj"— Perowne: ** Heaven being 
thought of as one great temple, and all the worshipers therein as clothed in priestly 
vestments." Pl 89 : 7— "a God rory torrible in tke ooaiieil of tko koly onai^ ** i e., angels — Perowno : 
^ Angels are called an assembly or congregation, as the church above, which like the 
church below worships and praises Ood. ** Hat. 18 : 10 — "in kMTon Ikeir angels do alvayt bekold 
tki Cue of my Patker wko if in kearea." In apparent allusion to this text, Dante represents the 
saints as dwelling in the presence of God yet at the same time rendering humble service 
to their fellow men here upon the earth. Just in proportion to their nearness to Ood 
and the light they receive from him, is the influence they are able to exert over 
others. 

( 6 ) They rejoice in Gk)d's works. 

Job38:7— "alltkeaoneofGodikMiudfor joy"; LokelS: 10 — "tkere ii joy in tkepraeBoeoftkeangelsof God 
over one sinner tkat repentetk"; c/. 21im.2:25— "ifperadrentore God siay giro tkem repentanoe." Dante 
represents the angels that are nearest to God, the infinite source of life, as ever 
advancing toward the spring-time of youth, so that the oldest angels are the youngest. 

( c ) They execute Gk)d's "will, — by working in nature ; 

Pi. 103:20 — " Tekii angels . . . tkat ftOlll kis word, Hearkening nnto tke Toiee of kisvord;*' 104:4 marg — 
" Wko maketk kis angels winds ; lis ministers a flaming fir^*' i. «., lightnings. See Alf ord on Heb. 1:7 — 
**The order of the Hebrew words here [ in Ps. 104: 4 ] is not the same as in the former 
verses ( see especially t. 3 ), where we have : ' Vko makstk tke elonds kis ckariot' For this trans- 
position, those who insist that the passage means *he maketh winds his messengers* 
can give no reason.*' 

Farrar on Seb. 1 :7 — "He maketk kis angels winds*': " The Rabbis often refer to the fact that 
Ood makes his angels assume any form he pleases, whether man ( Gen. 18 : 2 ) or woman 
(Zecb5:9 — ** two women, and tke wind wu in tkeir wings"), or winder flame (Ix. 8:2 — "angel ... in a 
flame of Are"; 21 6:17). But that untenable and fleeting form of existence which is the 
glory of the angels would be an inferiority in the Son« Ho could not be clothed, 
as they are at God's will, in the fleeting robes of material phenomena.*' John Henry 
Newman, in his Apologia, sees an angel in every flower. Mason, Faith of the Gospel, 
82 — ** Origen thought not a blade of grass nor a fly was without its angel. Rer. 14: 18— 
an angel ' tkat katk power over fire ' ; Jokn 5:4— intermittent spring under charge of an angel ; 
Hat. 28 : 2 —descent of an angel caused earthquake on the morning of Christ's resurreo- 
tion ; Lake 13 : 11 — control of diseases is ascribed to angels." 

( (2 ) by guiding the afi&irs of nations ; 

Dan. 10 : 12, 13, 21 — " I eome for tkj words* sake. But tke prinoe of tke kingdom of Persia witkstood me . . . 
HiekaelfOneof tkeckief prinoes, eametobelpme . . . Miekaeljoor prinoe"; 11:1 — "indufQrm^ in tbeflrstjear 
of Darios tke Hede, I stood np to oonflrm and strengtken kim " ; 12 : 1 — "at tkat time skaU Mickael stand np. tke 
great prinoe wko standetk for tke ekildren of tkj people." Mason, Faith of the Gospel, 87, suggests 
the question whether " the spirit of the ago " or " the national character *' in any par- 
ticular case may not be due to the unseen ** principalities ** under which men live. 
Paul certainly recognizes, in Epb. 2:2, "tke prinoe of tke powers of tke air, ... tke spirit tkat now worketk 
in tke sons of disobedienoe." May not good angels be entrusted with influence over nationp^ 
affaiis to counteract ^a <ivUand help i^ (^ocd ? 



452 THE WORKS OF QOO. 

( 6 ) bj watching over the interests of particular chmches ; 

1 Cor. 11 : 10 — *« for tkii Miw <nckt tks vsMa to Uti a BgA tf wtkvity [ {. e«, a veil ] « te kftd, ^^ 
tk» angtls " — who watch over the church and have care for Its order. Matheson, Spirit- 
ual Developqient of St. Paul, SIS — ** Man's covering is woman 's power. Ministration is 
her power and It allies her with a erreater than man — the anseL Christianity is a fem- 
inine strenirth. Judaism had made woman only a means to an end— the multiplica- 
tion of the race. So it had degraded her. Paul will restore woman to her original and 
equal dignity.'* OoL2:18— "LilBOBianb ywof ytirpnai hj aTiluitBy kuBilitj tai. vankipiiigof 
iha ang«U"— a false worship which would be very natural if angels were present to 
guard the meetings of thesaints. lTiii.S:21— '«IAtt|t Uit in ths ligkt tfCoiuAOristJoiBm 
iBd th« ded aagd% tkat tkoa obMrrt tkon tkiagt"— the public duties of the Christian minister. 

Alford regards " tks ang«U of tksttrai eknrckot" ( Itr. 1 : 20 ) as superhuman beings appointed 
to represent and guard the churches, and that upon the grounds : ( 1 ) that the word 
is used elsewhere in the book of Revelation only In this sense; and (8) that nothing 
in the book is addressed to a teacher indi\idually, but all to some one who reflects the 
complexion and fortunes of the church as no human person could. We prefer, how- 
ever, to regard "tks angels of tha nm ekimh«>" as meaning simply the pastors of the seven 
churches. The word "angel " means simply ^ messenger," and may be used of human as 
well as of superhuman beings — see Hag. 1 : 13 — "IM^gu, kkahk't ■■■■gw " — literally, " tka 
angel of Jehorah." The use of the word in this figurative sense would not be incon- 
gruous with the mystical character of the book of ReN'elation (see Bib. 8ac, IS : 330 ). 
John Ligbtfoot, Heb. and Talmud. Exerc, S:00, says that *^ angel '^ was a term desig- 
nating officer or elder of a synagogue. See also Bp. Lightfoot, Com. on Philippiana, 
187, 18C; Jacobs, EccL Polity, 100 and note. In the Irvingitc church, aooonUngly, 
" angels " constitute an official class. 

if) ^7 ft«"«tiTig and protectmg indiyidnal believers ; 

lLi9:5— ''an angel toachodhia[ Elijah], and nid unto him, AxiseanA oat"; Pi.91:U— "boviU givokii 
angels eharge otv the^ To keep thee in all thj vaji. Thaj ikall bear Utee np in tkeir kands, Lvt tkon daik tkj fbot 
agaioat a atone" ; Dan. 6 :22 — "Hj God haU tent his angel, and hath that the liont' nootk^ and thaj haTt not hart 
me"; Hat 4:11 — " angels eune and ministered onto him " — Jesus was the type of all believers ; 18:10 — 
" despise not one of these little ones, for I taj onto joo, that in heaTtn their angels do alvayt b^Mld the boe of mj 
Father"; compare Terse 6 — "one of theie little onet that belieTooa me"; see Meyer, Com. <n loco, who 
regards these passages as pro ving the doctrine of guardian angels. lioko 16 : 22 — " tht beg- 
gar died, and .... vas carried away bj the aogeli into Ibraham'tbotom"; Ieb.i:14 — "Are they not all minitter- 
ing spirits, sent forth to do serrioe forthe sakeof them that shall inhentialTation?** Compare Aelti2: 15— ** And 
they said. It it his angel " — of Peter standing knocking ; see Hackett Com. in loco : the utter- 
ance '^expresses a popular belief prevalent among the Jews, which is neither affirmed 
nor denied. *' Shakespeare, Henry IV, Snd part, S : S — ** For the boy — there is a good 
angel about him." Per contrct^ see Broadus, Com. on Mat 18 : 10— *^ It is simply said of 
believers as a clam that there are angels which are 'their angels ' ; but there is nothing here 
or elsewhere to show that one angel has special charge of one beUever, " 

iff) by pnniBhing God's enemies. 

2 L 19: 85— "it came to pats that night, that the angel of JehoTah vent fbrth. and imoto in the eampof the At^yriaas 
an hnndred foarsoore and Are thootend"; Aetsl2:23 — "And immediately an angel of the lord smoto him, beesAasho 
gare not God the glory : and he vas eaten of vorms, and gare np the ghost. " 

A general survey of this Scripture testimony as to the employments of 
good angels leads us to the following conclusions : 

First, — that good angels are not to be considered as the mediating 
agents of God's regular and common providence, but as the ministers of 
his special providence in the a£&drs of his church. He ' maketh his angels 
winds ' and * a flaming fire,' not in his ordinary procedure, but in connec- 
tion with special displays of his power for moral ends ( Dent. 33 : 2 ; Acts 
7 : 53 ; Gkd. 3 : 19 ; Heb. 2:2). Their intervention is apparently occasional 
and exceptional — not at their own option, but only as it is permitted or 
commanded by God. Hence wo are not to conceive of angeLs as coming 




SCBIFTITBE STATEMENTS AND INTIMATIONS. 453 

between ns and God, nor are we, without special revelation of the fact, to 
attribute to them iu any particular case the effects which the Scriptures 
generally ascribe to divine providence. Like miracles, therefore, angelio 
appearances generally mark God's entrance upon new epochs in the unfold- 
ing of his plans. Hence we read of angels at the completion of creation 
(Job 88 :7) ; at the giving of the law (GaL 3:19); at the birth of Christ 
( Lnke 2 : 13) ; at the two temptations in the wilderness and in Gethsemane 
( Mat 4 : 11, Lnke 22 :43 ) ; at the resurrection (Mat. 28 : 2 ) ; at the ascen- 
sion ( Acts 1 :10) ; at the final judgment ( Mat. 25 :31 ). 

The subfltanoe of these remarks may be found ia Hodge, Systematio Theologry* 1 : 687- 
MS. Milton tells us that ^* Millions of spiritual creatures walk the earth Unseen, both 
when we wake and when we sleep.*' Whether this be true or not, it is a question of 
interest why such angelio beings as have to do with human affairs are not at present 
seen by men. Paul's admonition against the "wonkiping of tha angels" (Col. 2 : 18 ) soems to 
suggest the reason. If men have not abstained from worshiping their fellow-men, 
when these latter have been priests or media of divine communications, the danger of 
idolatry would be much greater if we came into close and constant contact with angels ; 
see R«T. 22 : 8, 9— "I fell dovn to vonhip befen tko feet of tho aogol whioh shoved no tkeie things, ind ho laith 
snto BM^ See thoa doit not" 

The fact that we do not in our day see angels should not make us sceptical as to their 
existence any more than the fact that we do not in our day see miracles should make 
us doubt the reality of the New Testament miracles. As evil spirits were permitted to 
work most actively when Christianity began its appeal to men, so good angels were then 
most frequently recognized as executing the divine purposes. Novius, Demon-Posses- 
sion, 278, thinks that evil spirits are still at work where Christianity comi« in conflict 
with heathenism, and that they retire into the background as Christianity triumphs. 
This may be true also of good angels. Otherwise wo might be in dimgcr of overestimat- 
ing their greatness and authority. Father Taylor was right when ho said : ** Folks are 
better than angels.'* It is vain to sing : **I want to be an angeL'* We never shall be 
angels. Victor Hugo is wrong when he says: "I am the tadpole of an archangel." 
John Smith is not an angel, and ho never will be. But he may be far greater than an 
angel, because Christ took, not the nature of angels, but the nature of man ( Heb. 2 : 16 ). 

As intimated above, there is no reason to believe that even the invisible presence of 
angels is a constant one. Doddridge's dream of accident prevented by angelio interpo- 
sition seems to embody the essential truth. We append the passages ref(;rred to in the 
text. Job 38 : 7—" ¥hen the morning stars sang together, ind all the sons of God shouted for joj " ; Dent. 33 : 2 — 
** Jehorah eame from Sinai .... he eame from the ten Uioosands of holj ones : it his right hand wta a fiery law 
fer them"; 6al.3 : 19— "it [the law] vas ordained through angels bj the hand ofa mediator"; Heb.2:2— 
" the word ^ken throogh angels ' ' ; iots 7 : 53 —"who receired the law as it was ordained bj angels " ; Lake 2 : 13 — 
*' snddenlj there wu with the angel a mnltitnde of the hearenlj host " ; Mat^ 4 : 11 — " Then the devil leareth him ; and 
behold, angels oame and ministered nnto him " ; Lake 22 : 43 — "ind there appeared onto him an angel from heaven, 
itrmgthening him " ; Hat. 28 : 2 — "an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and eame and rolled awaj the stime, 
and sat npon it" ; iots 1 : 10 — "ind while they were looking steadfastly into heaven as he went, behold, two men 
stood by them in white apparel " ; Hat. 25 : 31 — "when the Son of man sh^ come in his gloiy, and all the angeU with 
him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory." 

Secondly, — that their power, a& being in its natore dependent and derived, 
is exercised in accordance with the laws of the spiritual and natural world. 
They cannot, like God, create, perform miracles, act without means, search 
the heart. Unlike the Holy Spirit, who can influence the human mind 
directly, they can influence men only in ways analogous to those by which 
men influence each other. As evil angels may tempt men to sin, so it is 
probable that good angels may attract men to holiness. 

Recent psychical researches disclose almost unlimited possibilities of influencing 
other minds by suggestion. Slight ptiysical phenomena, as the odor of a violet or the 
sight in a book of a crumpled roseleaf, may start trains of thought which chan^'e the 
whole course of a life. A word or a look may have great power over us. Fisher, Nature 



454 XHB WORKS OF GOB. 

and Method of Beirdatioii, 278— ''The facts of hypaotlBm lUustnte the poaaibOity of 
one mind falling into a strange thraldom und«r another." If other men can so power- 
f UII7 influence us, it Is quite possible that spirits which axe not subject to Umitatioiis 
of the flesh may influence us yet more. 

Binet, in his AHerations of Personality, says that experiments on hysterical patients 
have produced in his mind the conviction tfaat, in them at least, ** a plurality of penons 
exists. . • • We have established almost with certainty that in such patients, side by side 
with the principal personality, there is a secondary posonality, which Is unknown Iry 
the first, which sees, hears, reflects, reasons and acts '* ; see Andover Review, April, 
18B0 : 422. Hudson, Law of Psychic Phenomena, 81-143, claims that we have two minds, 
the objective and conscious, and the subjective and unconscious. The latter works 
automaticaily upon suggestion from the objective or from other minds. In view of 
the facts r eferred to by Binet and Hudson, we claim that the influence of angelic spirits 
is no more incredible than is the Influence of suggestion from living men. There is no 
need of attributing the phenomena of hypnotism to spirits of the dead. Our human 
nature is larger and more susceptible to spiritual influence than we have commonly 
believed. These psychical phenomena indeed furnish us with a corroboration of our 
Ethical Monism, for if in one human being there may be two or more consciousnesses, 
then in the one God there may be not only three infinite personalities but also multi- 
tudinous finite personalities. See T. H. Wright, The Finger of God, 134-133. 

B. The emplojments of evil angels. 

( a ) They oppose God and sirive to defeat his wilL This is indicated 
in the names applied to their chief. The word "Satan" means " adver- 
sary " — primarily to God, secondarily to men ; the term " devil " signifies 
" slanderer " — of God to men, and of men to Gk>d. It is indicated also in 
the description of the "man of sin*' as "he that opposeth and exalteth 
himself against all that is called Gk>d.' 



»> 



Job 1 :6— Satan appears among "00 ami of God**; ZecL8:l— '*J«ikiatk«higlipri«i.... aadbtai 
tUudiof^ttkisrighthuuitobekisadTBnary'*; ]Uil3:39— *'tk« 00017 tkAiaovodtkMiitkodoTQ'*; lPttS:8 
— " joar wtmnrj tko derU." Satan slanders God to men, in Gob. 3:1, 4— "Tea, lutk God aid? .... 
To shall not nnlydio"; men to God, in Jobl:9,ll— "DotkJobfoirGodfor iiMght? . . . . pAt ftrtk tkj 
luuid aov, lad toa(& all tkAi ho hath, ladhe viUrenoonootkoetethy&eo"; 2:4,5 — * Skin ifar skin, 70O1 all that a 
nan hath will ho giro lin' his lifii But pat forth thino hand nov, and toach his bono and his flo^ and ho will rsnoonoo 
thoe tothjfue'*; Bor. 12:10— "the aoeoaor of oar bnthrai it out down, who aoooaeth than bolfan our God night 
and day." 

Notice how, over against the evil spirit who thus accuses God to man and man to 
God, stands the Holy Spirit, the Advocate, who pleads God*8 cause with man and man*8 
cause with God : John 16 : 8 — "ho, whon ho is oomo, will ooiiTiot tho world in rospoet of sin, and d zightooot- 
neos, and of Jndgmont " ; Rom.8:26 — "the^iritalaoholpoth oar inlinnitj: for wo know not how to pray as wo 
ought ; bat tho Spirit himself makoth intoroeicon for as with groanings which cannot bo attered." Hence Balaam 
can say : Vom. 23 :2i, "Ho hatk not boheld iniqni^ in Jacob, Koithor hath he seen porrerteness in Israel " ; and 
tho Lord can say to Satan as he resists Joshua: " Jehorah reboke thee, Satan; yea, Jeherah that 
hath choeenJenualom reboko thoe" (ZecL 3:2). **Thus he puts himself between his people and 
every tongue that would accuse them " ( C. H. M.). For the description of the ** nan of 
sin," sec 2 ThesL 2: 3, 4— "he that opposeth"; c/. Terse 9—" whose coming is according to the working of Satan.'* 

On the " man of rin," see Wm. Arnold Stevens, in Bap. Quar. Rev., July, 1889 : 338-360. As 
in Daniel 11 : 36, the great enemy of the faith, he who "shall exalt himself and magnify himself aboro 
erery God", is the Syrian King, Antiochus Epiphanes, so the man of lawlessness described 
by Paul in 2 Then. 2:3, 4 was *Hhe corrupt and impious Judaism of the apostolic age.'* 
This only had its seat in the temple of God. It was doomed to destruction when the 
Lord should come at the fall of Jerusalem. But this fulfilment docs not preclude a 
future and final fulfilment of tho prophecy. 

Contrasts between the Holy Spirit and the spirit of evil : 1. The dove, and the serpent ; 
2, the father of lies, and the Spirit of truth ; 8. men possessed by dumb spirits, and men 
given wonderful utterance in diverse tongues; 4. the murderer from the beginning, 
and tho life-giving Spirit, who regenerates the soul and quickens our mortal bodies ; 
6. the adversary, and the Helper ; 6. the slanderer, and the Advocate ; 7. Satan^s sifting, 
and the Master's winnowing ; 8. the organizing intelligence and malignity of the evil 
one, and the Holy Spirit's combination of all the forces of matter and mind to build up 



SCBIPTITBE STATEMENTS AND INTIMATIONS. 455 

the kingdom of God ; 9. the strong man fully armed, and a stronger than he ; 10. the 
evil one who works only erll, and the holy One who is the author of holiness in the 
hearts of men. The opposition of evil angels, at first and ever since their fall, may be 
a reason why they are incapable of redemption. 

{b) They hinder man's temporal and eternal welfare, — sometimes by 
exercising a certain control over natural phenomena, but more commonly 
by subjecting man's soul to temptation. Possession of man's being, either 
physical or spiritual, by demons, is also recognized in Scripture. 

Control of natural phenomena is ascribed to evil spirits in Job i : 12, 16* 19 and 2: 7— "all 
tut k« lath is in tii7 povor" —and Satan uses lightning, whirlwind, disease, for his purposes : 
Luke 13:ii, 16— **& wanun that had aipirit of inflmitj .... vhom Satan had bound, lo, theie eighteen years'* ; 
lets 10: 38— "healing all that vere oppressed of the detil " ; 2 Oor. 12 : 7— "a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of 
Satan to boirt me" ; i Theas. 2 :18 — " ve wofold fiun hare oome nnto joo, I Panl onoe and again; and Satan hindered 
08 " ; leb. 2 : 14 — " him that had the pover of death, that is, the deyil." Temptation is ascribed to evil 
spirits in G«n. 3 : 1 sg.- " Kov the serpent iras more snbtle" ; ef. BeT.20:2 — "theoldserpent, vhiehistheDeril 
and Satan"; Vat 4:8 — "the tempter came"; Johnl3:27 — " after the sop, then entered Satan into him"; iets5:3 
— "vhj hath Satan filled th7 heart to lie to the E0I7 Spirit?" 8pL 2: 2— "the spirit that nov vorlLeth in the sons 
ef disobedience " ; i ThesL 3 : 5 — " lest bj anj means the tempter had tempted 70a " ; 1 Pet 5 :8— " jonr adTersarj 
the deril, as a roaring lion, walluth abont, seeking vhom he maj deroor." 

At the time of Christ, popular belief undoubtedly exaggerated the influence of evil 
spirits. Savage, Life after Death, 113 — ** While God was ata distance, the demons were 
very, very near. The air about the earth was full of these evil tempting spirits. They 
caused shipwreck at sea, and sudden death on land ; they blighted the crops ; they 
smote and blasted in the tempests ; they took possession of the bodies and the souls of 
men. They entered into compacts, and took mortgages on men's souls." If some 
good end has been attained in spite of them they feel that ** Their labor must be to 
pervert that end. And out of good still to find means of evil." In Goethe's Faust, Mar- 
garet detects the evil in Mephistophcles : ** You see that he with no soul sympathizes. 

•T is written on his face— he never loved Whenever he comes near, I cannot 

pray." Mophlstopheles describes himself as *' Eln Thcil von Jencr Kraft Die stttts das 
BOse will Und stttts das Gute sohafft'*- **Part of that power not understood, which 
alwajrs wills the bad, and always works the good " —through the overruling Providence 
of God. " The devil says his prayers backwards." " He tried to learn the Basque 
language, but had to give it up. having learned only three words in two years." Walter 
Scott tells us that a certain sulphur spring in Scotland was reputed to owe its quality 
to an ancient compulsory immersion of Satan in it. 

Satan's temptations are represented as both negative and positive, — he 
takes away the seed sown, and he sows tares. He controls many subordi- 
nate evil spirits ; there is only one devil, but there are many angels or 
demons, and through their agency Satan may accompUsh his purposes. 

Satan's negative agency is shown In Mark 4 : 15 — "when thej hare heard, straightwaj oometh Satan, 
and taketh Kwnj the word which hath been sown in them " ; his i>ositive agency in Mat 13 : 38, 39 — " the tares 
an the sons of the eril one ; and the enemy that sowed them is the deriL" One devil, but many angels : sc>e 
Mat 25: 41 — "the deril and his angels"; Mark 5:9 — "Mj name is Legion, for we are manj"; Eph.2:2 — "the 
prinee of tiie powers of the air" ; 6 : 12 — "principalities .... powers .... world-mlers of this darkness .... 
quritoal hosts of wickedness." The mode of Satan's access to the human mind wo do not know. 
It may be that by moving upon our physical organism he produces subtle signs of 
thought and so reaches the understanding and desires. He certainly has the power to 
present in captivating forms the objects of appetite and selfish ambition, as he did to 
Christ in the wilderness (Mat 4 : 3, 6, 9 ), and to appeal to our love for independence by 
saying to us, as he did to our first parents — " je shall be as God " ( Gen. 3:5). 

C. C. Everett, Essays Theol. and Lit., 18d-218. on The Devil : ** If the supernatural 
powers would only hold themselves aloof and not interfere with the natural processes 

of the world, there would be no sickness, no death, no sorrow This shows a real, 

though perhaps unconscious, faith in the goodness and trustworthiness of nature. 
The world in itself is a source only of good. Hero is the germ of a positive religion, 
though this religion when it appears, may adopt the form of supematuralism." If 
there was no Satan, then Christ's temptations came from within, and showed a predis- 
position to evil on his own part. 



456 



THE WOBKS OF GOB. 



FoBseesioii is distingiiished from bodily or mental disease, thotigh such 
diflease often accompanies possession or results from it. — The demons 
speak in their own persons, with supematnral knowledge, and they are 
directly addressed by Christ. Jesus recognizes Satanic agency in these 
cases of possession, and he rejoices in the casting out of demons, as a sign 
of Satan's downfall. These facts render it impossible to interpret the 
narratives of demoniac possession as popular descriptions of abnormal 
physical or mental conditions. 

Poeeeflsion may apparently be either physical, as in the case of the Oerasene demon- 
lg^3g ( Hi^k 5 : 2-4 ), or spiritual, as in the case of the " nuid haTing a spirit of diyinatioa " ( lot 16 : 16 ), 
where the body does not seem to have been affected. It is distingrulshed from bodily 
tUsease: see ]lail7:15,18—"0pileptie....th« demon vent out from him: and tka boy irai oared"; laric9:2S 

«Tli0a domb and deaf ipirit" ; 3:11, 12 — " the onclMa ipiriti .... oried, lajinf, Bum art the Son of God. 

And ke charged them moch that they should not make him knovn" ; Lnke 8 : 30^ 81 — " And Jens aaked him, What is 
thy n«"»^ ? And he sud, Legion ; for many demons vere entered nnto him. And they entreated him that ho vonld not 
^^^^ln,n^^ them to depart into the abyss" ; 10:17, 18 — "And the serenty returned vith joy, saying; Lord, even the 
^^i fpuMm axe sobjeet nnto ns in thy name. And he said onto them, I beheld Satan &Uen as lig^itning from heaTU." 

Thefle descriptions of personal intercourse between Christ and the demons cannot be 
interpreted as metaphorical. *' In the temptation of Christ and in the possession of the 
swine, imagination could have no place. Christ was above Its delusions; the brutes 
were below them.*' Earrar (Life of Christ, 1:337-^1, and 2: excursus vii), while he 
admits the existence and agency of grood angels, very inconslBtently gives a metaphor- 
ical interpretation to the Scriptural accounts of evil angels. We find corroborative 
evidence of the Scripture doctrine in the domination which one wicked man frequently 
exercines over others; in the opinion of some modem physicians in charge of the 
Insane, that certain phenomena in their patients^ experience are beet explained by sup- 
posing an actual subjection of the will to a foreign power ; and, finally, in the 
influence of the Holy Spirit upon the human heart. See Trench, Miracles, 125-196 ; 
Smith's Bible Dictionary. 1 : 586 — *• Possession is distinguished from mere temptation 
by the complete or incomplete loss of the sufferer's reason or power of will ; his actions, 
words, and almost his thoughts, are mastered by the evil spirit, till his personality 
seems to be destroyed, or at least so overborne as to produce the consciousness of a 
twofold will within him like that in a dream. In the ordinary assaults and temptations 
of Satan, the will Itself yields consciously, and by yielding gradually assumes, without 
losing Its apparent freedom of action, the characteristics of the Satanic nature. It is 
solicited, urged, and persuaded against the strivings of grace, but it is not overborne." 

T. H. Wright. The Finger of God, argues that Jesus, in his mention of demoniacs, 
sx90ornm<jdated himself to the beliefs of his time. Fisher, Nature and Method of Reve- 
latSoD, 27i, with reference to Weiss's Meyer on Mat. 4 : 24, gives Meyer's arguments against 
i^ctnoDiBcal i>o«8es8ion as follows : 1. the absence of references to demoniacal possession 
in the Old Tr;«tament, and the fact that so-called demoniacs were cured by exorcists; 
2. that no clear case of possession occurs at present ; 3. that there is no notice of demon- 
i^cal p^jflsesslon in John's Gosiiel, though the overcoming of Satan is there made a part 
of tb« Mc«lah's work and Satan is said to enter into a man's mind and take control 
there ( J«hn 13 : 27 ) ; 4- and that the so-called demoniacs are not, as would be expected, of 
a nu^t»f>^ic Uitnirer and flilwl with malignant feelings toward Christ. Hamack, Wesen 
il(j« Christifuthunji!, 38 — "The popular belief in demon-possession gave form to the 
er>fioerrtlons of th* fVs who had nervous diseases, so that they expressed themselves in 
jjimi-Liage prober only to thr>se who were actually possessed. Jesus is no believer in 
Chrii*t^'> 8cl«^ce: b*.- calls ulckness sickness and health health; but he regards all 
dl#e«i»e as a pro^if and effect of the working of the evil one." 

fpti Mark 1 :21-34, 9/se Maclarrm in 8. 8. Times, Jan. 23, 1904— "We are told by some that 
thUi '4^-»""nl«'' ^^ "" eiiileptic. Possibly; but. if the epilepsy was not the result of 
|M>#«*^*«^''"' ^^y »**''"*'' *^ ^^'^ ^*»« sliape of violent hatred of Jesus? And what is there 
in ^n^* ^^*y ^' *^^" dljw^^-'mment of his character and the purpose of his mission ? " Not 
Jutit*»' '^xorclfciu oi demons as a fact, but his casting them out by a word, was our Lord's 
^s,u^-rfui charH^-t^rrtetic Nevlus, Demon -Possession, 240—" May not demon-posses- 
Si//fi ^^- ""*y * diffen?nt. a raoni adv-anced, form of hypnotism ? .... It is possible that 
l^^tsit^ *:vU upirUM are familiar with the organism of the nervous system, and are capable 




SORIPTdBE STATEMENTS AND INTIMATIONS. 457 

of ucUng upon and influendoff manklDd in aooordanoe with physical and psychological 
laws. • • • • The hypnotic trance may bo effected, without the use of physical orgaus, 
by the mere force of will-power, spirit acting upon spirit.'* Nevius quotes F. W. A. 
Uyean^ Fortnifirhtly Rev^ Nov. 1886— ** One such discovery, that of telepathy, or the 
transf^renoe of thouirht and sensation from mind to mind without the airency of the 
reoo8:niaed organs of sense, has, as I hold, been already achieved." See Bennet, Diseases 
of tlie Bible; Kcdney, Diabolology; and references in Poole*s Synopsis, 1:343; also 
Bramwell, Hypnotisin, 358-^96. 

(c) Yet» in spite of themflelves, they execute Ckxl's plans of punishing 
the Tingodly, of chastening the good, and of illustrating the nature and 
fate of moral eviL 

Punishing the ungodly : Pi 78 : 49 — " He eait upon th«m tli« fienoMi of Us aiig«r, Wratb ind Indigiutioo, 
■ndtreabmbuidofuigtlfofeTil"; 1L22:23 — "Jthorak liath pat a Ijing ipirit ia the montk of aU theietkj 
inpketo ; ud JohoTik kath ipokan otU oooflerniof thoe." In Loko 22 : 21, Satan's sifting accomplishes the 
opposite of the sifter's intention, and the same as the Master's winnowing ( Maclaren ). 

Chastening the good : see Job, ebaptan i and 2 ; i Cor. 5 : 5— '*d«linr sodi a ooe onto Sttia for tha 
toliuitiUBofthoflath,that tho ipirit maj b« tared in the day of tho kri Jons**; e/.lT!]ii.l:20 — "Hthmdmu 
asd Akiaadar ; vhom I dellTored onto Satan, that tlioy might bo taogkt not to blsiphanuL** This delivering to 
Satan for the destruction of the flesh seems to have involved four things : ( 1 ) excom- 
munication from the church ; ( 2 ) authoritative infliction of bodily disease or death ; 
( 3 ) loss of all protection from good angels, who minister only to saints ; ( 4 ) subjection 
to the buffetings and tormentings of the great accuser. Gould, in Am. Corsu on 1 Cor. 5 :S, 
regards ** delivering to Satan '* as merely putting a man out of the church by excom- 
munication. This of itself was equivalent to banishing him into ** the world,** of which 
Satan was the ruler. 

Evil spirits illustrate the nature and fate of moral evil : see Mat. 8 : 29— "art thoa oomt 
hither to toment ns before the time? " 25 : 41 — "eternal fire vhieh is prepared for the doTil and his angels'* ; 2 Then. 
2 : 8 — "then shell be rerealed the lairlees one" ; James 2 : 19 — "the demons also beliere, snd shudder " ; Eer. 12 : 9, 
12 — "^ DotU snd Satan, the deceirer of the vhole world .... the deril is gone down nnto yon, haring great wrath, 
knowing that he hath bat ashort time" ; 20 : 10— "csttinto the lake of Are .... tarmented daj and night fbr erer 
and erer.** 

It is an interesting question whether Scripture recognizes any special connection of 
evil spirits with the systems of idolatry, witchcraft, and spiritualism which burden the 
world. 1 Cor. 10 : 20 — "the things iriiich the Gentiles saoriiice^ thej sacrifioe to denuuu^ and not to God" ; 2 Thess. 
2:9 — "^working of Satan with all power and signs of Ijing wonders" — would seem to favor an 
affirmative answer. But 1 Car. 8 : 4 — " oonoeming therefore the eating of things saaifloed to idols, we know 
that no idol is anything in the world '* — seems to favor a negative answer. This last may. how- 
ever, mean tliat '* the beings whom the idols are designed to represcTil have no exist- 
ence, although it is afterwards shown (10 :20) that there are other beings connected 
with false worship " ( Ann. Par. Bible, in loco ). " Heathenism is the reign of the devil ** 
( Meyer ), and while the heathen think themselves to be sacrificing to Jupiter or Venus, 
they are really " laarificing to demons," and are thus furthering the plans of a malignant spirit 
who uses these forms of false religion as a means of enslaving their souls. In like man- 
ner, the network of influences which support the papacy, spiritualism, modem unbe- 
lief, is difficult of explauation, unless we believe in a superhuman intelligence which 
organizes these forces against God. In these, as weU as in heathen religions, there axe 
facts inexplicable upon merely natural principles of disease and delusion. 

Nevius, Demon-Possession, 294 — " Paul teaches that the gods mentioned under differ- 
ent names are imaginary and non-existent ; but that, behind and in connection with 
these gods, there are demons who make use of idolatry to draw men away from Ood ; 
and it is to these that the heathen are unconsciously rendering obedience and service. 
... It is most reasonable to b<>Iieve that the sufferings of people bewitched were caused 
by the devil, not by the so-culled witches. Let us substitute * devilcraf t ' for * witch- 
craft.' . . . Had the courts in Salem proceeded on the Scriptural presumption that the 
testimony of those under the control of evil spirits would, in the nature of the case, be 
false, such a thing as the Salem tragedy would never have been known.*' 

A survey of the Scripture testimony with regard to the employments of 
evil spirits leads to the following general conclusions : 

First, — the power of evil spirits over men is not independent of th e 
human wilL This power cannot be exercised without at least the original 



458 THE WORKS OF GOD. 

consent of the lioman will, and may be resisted and shaken off through 
prayer and faith in God. 

Loke 22 : 31, 40 — "Satan aaked to hare 70a, that he might sift 70a as vh«at .... Pray that ye entar not into 
temptatioiB " ; Iph. 6 : U — "Pat oa tiie irbole armor of Ckid, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the 
dsnl"; 16 — "the shield of faith, whereirith ye shall be able to qnenoh all the fieiy darts of the eril one"; JanieB4:7 
— "resist the deTil, and he vill flee frtm yoa" ; 1 Pet 5: 9— "vhom irithstand sted&st in your fidth.** The 
coals are already in the human heart, in the shape of corrupt inclinations; Satan only 
blows them into flame. The double source of sin is illustrated in ids 5 : 3^ 4 ~ " Why hath 
Satan filled thy heart? ... Ho v is it that thoa hast ooooeiTed this thing in thine heart?" The Satanic impulse 
could have been resisted, and "alter it vu" sugg-ested, it was still "in his own power," as was 
the land that he had sold ( Maclaren). 

The soul is a castle into which ev^n the king of evil spirits cannot enter without 
•receiving permission from within. Bp. Wordsworth : ** The devil may tempt us to fall« 
but he cannot make us fall ; he may persuade us to cast oundves down, but he cannot 
cagt us down." K G. Robinson : ** It is left to us whether the devil shall get control of 
us. We pack oif on the deviFs shoulders much of our own wrong doing, just as Adam 
had the impertinence to tell God that the woman did the mischief." Both God and 
Satan stand at the door and knock, but neither heaven nor hell can come in imless we 
wiU. " We cannot prevent the birds from flying over our heads, but we can prevent 
them from mnVing their nests in our hair." Kai 12 : 43-45 — " The nndean spirit, when he is gime 
oat of a man" —suggests that the man who gets rid of one vice but does not occupy his 
mind with better things is ready to be repossessed. "SsTen other spirits more eriiaan himself" 
implies that some demons are more wicked than others and so are harder to cast out 
( Hark 9 : 29 ). The Jews had cast out idolatry, but other and worse sins had taken pos- 
session of them. 

Hudson, Law of Psychic Phenomena, 120— ** The hypnotic subject cannot be con- 
trolled so far as to make him do what he knows to be wrong, unless he himself vol- 
untarily assents." A. 8. Hart: ** Unless one is willing to be hypnotized, no one can 
put him under the influence. The more intelligent one is, the more susceptible. Hyp- 
notism requires the subject to do two-thirds of the work, while the instructor does 
only ono-third — that of telling the subject what to do. It is not an inherent influence, 
nor a gift, but can be learned by any one who can read. It is impossible to compel a 
person to do wrong while under the influence, for the subject retains a consciousness 
of the difference between right and wrong." 

HSffding, Outlines of Psychology, 330-336— ** Some persons have the power of inten- 
tionally calling up hallucinations ; but it often happens to them as to Goethe*s Zauber- 
Ichrllng, or apprentice-magician, that the phantoms gain power over them and will not 
be again disi)er8cd. Goethe's Fischer — * Half she drew him down and half he sank ' — 
repeats the duality in the second term ; for to sink ia to let one's self sink." Manton, 
the Puritan : *' A stranger cannot call off a dog from the flock, but the Shepherd can do 
so with a word ; so the Lord can easily rebuke Satan when he flnds him most violent." 
Spurgcon, the modem Puritan, remarks on the above : " O Lord, when I am worried by 
my great enemy, call him off, I pray thee I Let me hear a voice saying: 'Jehovah rebnks 
thee, Satan ; eren Jehovah that hath chosen Jerusalem rebake thee 1 ' ( Zeoh. 3:2). By thine election of me, 
rebuke him, I pray thee, and deliver me from 'the power of the dog ' I ( Ps. 22 : 20 ).'* 

Secondly,— their power is limited, both in time and in extent, by the 
permissive "will of God« Evil spirits are neither omnipotent, omniscient) 
nor omnipresent We are to attribute disease and natural calamity to their 
agency, only when this is matter of special revelation. Opposed to God as 
evil spirits are, God compels them to serve his purposes. Their power for 
harm lasts but for a season, and ultimate judgment and punishment will 
vindicate God's permission of their evil agency. 

lCor.lO:13 — "God la ikithfdl, who will not suffer 7on to be tempted aborathat ye are able ; bat will with tha 
temptation make also the waj of eioape, that jron maj be able to endore it " ; Jade 6 — " an^ls which kept not their own 
beginning, but left their proper habitation, he hath kept in ererlasting bonds under darkness onto the judgment of the 
great day." 

Luther saw Satan nearer to man than his coat, or his shirt, or even his skin. In all 
misfortune he saw the devil's work. Was there a conflagration in the town ? By look- 
ing closely you might see a demon blowing upon the flame. Pestilence and storm he 




OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF ANGELS. 459 

ftttributed to Satan. All this was a rello of the medlseval exaggerations of Satan's 
power. It was then supposed that men misrht make covenants with the evil one, in 
which supernatural power was purchased at the price of final perdition ( see Goethe's 
Faust). 

Scripture furnishes no warrant for such representations. There seems to have been 
permitted a special activity of Satan in temptation and possession duringr our Savior's 
ministry, in order that Cbrist^s power mi^rht be demonstrated. By his death Jesus 
brought "to nanght him that had th« power of death, that i% the deril " ( Heb. 2 : 14 ) and " baring despoiled the 
pnae^ilitiei and the powers, he made a ihov of them openlj, triunphing orer them in it," i. c.^ in the Crora ( OoL 
2:15). 1 John 3: 8-- ''To thif end vu the Son ofGodmanifeited, that he might destroy the works of the deril" Evil 
spirits now exist and act only upon sufferance. McLeod, Temptation of our Lord, 24 
— ** Satan's power is limited, ( 1 ) by the fact that he is a creature ; ( 3 ) by the fact of 
God's providence ; ( 3 ) by the fact of his own wickedness." 

Gtenuner, Epic of the Inner Life, 136— "Having neither fixed principle in himself 
nor connection with the source of order outside, Satan has not prophetic ability. He 
can appeal to chance, but he cannot foresee. So Goethe's Mephistopheles insolently 
boasts that he can lead Faust astray : * What will you bet? There's still a chance to 
grain him. If unto me full leave you srive Gently upon my road to train him I ' And in 
Job 1 : li ; 2 : 5, Satan wagers : 'He will renonnee thee to thy &oe.' " William Ashmore : ** Is Satan 
omnipresent? No, but he is very spry. Is he bound? Yes, but with a rather loose 
rope." In the Persian story, God scattered seed. The devil buried it, and sent the 
rain to rot it. But soon it sprang up, and the wilderness blossomed as the rose. 

n. Objections to the Doctrine of AnoeiiS. 

1, To the doctrine of angels in general. It is objected : 

(a) That it is opposed to the modem scientifio view of the world, as a 
BTStem of definite forces and laws. — We reply that, whatever truth there 
may be in this modem view, it does not exclude the play of divine or 
human free agency. It does not, therefore, exclude the possibility of angelic 
agency. 

Ladd, Philosophy of Knowledge, 332— "It is easier to believe in angels than in other; 
in God rather than atoms; and in the history of bis kingdom as a divine 8c>lf -reve- 
lation rather than in the physicist's or the biologist's purely mechanical process of 
evolution." 

( 6 ) That it is opposed to the modern doctrine of infinite space above 
and beneath us — a sjyace peopled with worlds. With the surrender of the 
old conception of the firmament, as a boundary separating this world from 
the regions beyond, it is claimed that we must give up aU belief in a heaven 
of the angels. — We reply that the notions of an infinite universe, of heaven 
as a definite place, and of spirits as confined to fixed locality, are without 
certain warrant either in reason or in Scripture. We know nothing of the 
modes of existence of pure spirits. 

What we know of the universe is certainly finite. Angels are apparently incorporeal 
beings, and as such are free from all laws of matter and space. Heaven and hell are 
essentially conditions, corresponding to character— conditions in which the body and 
the surroundings of the soul express and reflect its inward state. The main thing to be 
insisted on is therefore the state; place is merely incidental. The fact that Christ 
ascended to heaven with a human body, and that the saints are to possess glorified 
bodies, would seem to imply tliat heaven is a place. Christ's declaration with regard 
to him who is ** able to destroj both soul and bodjinhell" (Mat 10:28) affords some reason for 
believing that hell is also a place. 

Where heaven and hell are, is not revealed to us. But it is not necessary to suppose 
that they are in some remote part of the universe; for aught wo know, they may be 
right about us, so that if our eyes were opened, like those of the prophet's servant 
( 2 lings 6 : 17 X we ourselves should behold them. Upon ground of Sph. 2 : 2 — "pnnoe of the 



460 THE WORKS OF GOD. 

pown of tte air**— and 8:10 — "tht p ri a rfp d Mw ind the powtra in tte hetftolj plaoM**— some have 
aasiflmed the atmosphere of the earth as the abode of anireUo spirits, both ^ood and 
ovlL But the expressions "air" and " Wrtolj plaosa" may be merely mecaphorioal desiK- 
nations of their spiritoal method of existence. 

The Idealistio philosophy, which regards time and space as merely subjeotiye forms 
of our human thinking and as not oondltionlnfir the thou^rht of God, may possibly 
aiford some additional aid in the consideration of this problem. If matter be only the 
exproaslon of God's mind and will, having: no existence apart from his intelliflrenoeand 
volition, the question of place ceases to have sig^nifloanoe. Heaven is in that case 
simply the state in which God manifests himself in his grace, and hell is the state in 
which a moral being finds himself in opposition to God, and God in opposition to him. 
Christ can manifest himself to his foUowers in all parts of the earth and to all the 
inhabitants of heaven at one and the same time ( John 14 : 21 ; Hal. 28 : 20 ; Eer. 1 : 7 X Angels 
in like manner, being purely spiritual beings, may be free from the laws of space and 
time, and may not be limited to any fixed locality. 

We prefer therefore to leave the question of place undecided, and to accept the exist- 
ence and working of angels both good and evil as a matter of faith, without professing 
to understand their relations to space. For the rationalistic view, see Strauss, Glau- 
benslchre, 1 : 670-676. Per contra^ see Van Oosterzee, Christian Dogmatics, 1 : 308-317 . 
Martensen^ Christian Dogmatics, 127-186. 

2. To the doctrine of evil angels in particular. It is objected that : 

( a ) The idea of the fall of angels is self -contradictory, since a fall deter- 
mined by pride presupposes pride — that is, a fall before the fall. — We 
reply that the objection confounds the occasion of sin with the sin itself. 
The outward motive to disobedience is not disobedience. The fall took 
place only when that outward motive was chosen by free will. When the 
motive of independence was selfishly adopted, only then did the innocent 
desire for knowledge and power become pride and sin. How an evil voli- 
tion could originate in si)irit8 created pure is an insoluble i^roblem. Our 
faith in God's holiness, however, compels us to attribute the origin of this 
evil volition, not to the Creator, but to the creature. 

There can be no sinful propensity before there is sin. The reason of thejtrsf sin can 
not be sin itself. This would be to make sin a necessary development ; to deny the 
holiness of God the Creator ; to leave the ground of theism for pantheism. 

( 6 ) It is irrational to suppose that Satan should have been able to 
change his whole nature by a single act, so that he thenceforth willed only 
evil. — But we reply that the circimistances of that decision are unknown 
to us ; while the power of single acts permanently to change character is 
matter of observation among men. 

Instance the effect, upon character and life, of a single act of falsehood or embezzle- 
ment. The first glass of intoxicating drink, and the first yielding to impure suggestion, 
often establish nerve-tracts in the brain and associations in the mind which are not 
reversed and overcome for a whole lifetime. "Sow an act, and you reap a habit ; sow 
a habit, and you reap a character ; sow a character, and you reap a destiny.** And what 
is true of men, may be also true of angels. 

( c ) It is impossible that so wise a being should enter upon a ho|)eless 
rebellion. — We answer that ao amount of mere knowledge ensures right 
moral action. If men gratify present passion, in spite of their knowledge 
that the sin involves present misery and future perdition, it is not impossi- 
ble that Satan may have done the same. 

Scherer, Essays on English Literature, 139, puts this objection as follows : " The Idwi 
of Satan is a contradictory idea : for it is contradictory to know God and yet attempt 
rivalry with him." But we must remember that understanding is the servant of will. 



OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF ANGELS. 461 

and i« darkened by will. Many elc\'or men fail to m>o what belonire to their peace. It 
is the very nuulnesA of sin, that it p4'rsi.«t« in iniquity, even when it sivs and fcuni the 
approacbincT Judianent of God. .Fonat hun Edwurrls : ** Althoufirh the devil be exoeed- 
inj^Iy crafty and subtle, yet he is one of tlie frn^test fo(»Is and blockheads in the world, 
as the subtlest of wicked mem are. Sin Is of such a nature tliat it Htrangely Infatuates 
and stultlllcs the mind.'* One of Ben Jonson's plays has for its title : ** The Devil is 
an Ass." 

Schleiennaeher, Die Christliche Glaubo, 1 : 210, urges that iK)ntinual wickedness must 
have weakened Satan *s understandinK« so that he could be no longer feared, and he 
adds: **Nothinfir is easier than to c<mtend ainiinst emotional evil.'* On the other 
band, there seems evidence in Scripture of a proirrcssive raflreand devastating activity 
in the case of the evil one, beginning in GencRis and culminating in the lievcflation. 
With this increasing malignity there is also abundant evidence of his unwisdom. We 
may instance the devil *s mistaktv in misrepresenting 1. God to man (0e]L3:i— "kjUk 
Maid?'*). 2. Mantohimself(G«D.8:4-"T«BkAllnotranljd:«"). &. Man to God (Job 1: 9 — 
"BotkJoblMrMikiiaiight?"). 4. God to himself (]Ui4 :3 — "If tlioiiarttlieSonofGod"). S. Him- 
self to man ( 2 Oor. 11 : 14 — "Satan Cuhionetii himidf into an tngtl of light " ). 6. Himself to himself 
( Bit. 12: 12 — "tte devil ii fOM down onto 70a, haTin; gnat wratk " — thinking he could successfully 
oppose God or destroy man >. 

(d) It is inoonaistent with the bonevolenoe of God to create and uphold 
spiritSy who he knows will be and do evil. — Wo reply that this is no more 
inconsistent with God's beuevolonce than the creation and preservation of 
men, whose action God overrules for the furthcnmce of his purposes, and 
whose iniquity he finally brings to light and punishes. 

Seduction of the pure by the impure, piracy, slavery, and war, have all been permit- 
ted among men. It is no more iucon8ist<;nt with God's Iwnevolence to permit them 
among angelic spirits. Caroline Tox tells of Emerson and Carlyle that the latter once 
led his friend, the serene philosopher, through the abominations of the streets of 
London at midnight, asking him with grim humor at evcTy few steps : ** Do you believe 
in the devil now ? ^ Ementon replicid that the more he saw of the English people, the 
greater and better he thought them. It must have been because with such depths 
beneath them they could notwithstanding roach Ruch heights of civilization. Even 
%'ice and misery can be overruled for good, and the fate of evil angels may be made a 
warning to the imlverse. 

( e ) The notion of organization among e\il spirits is self-contradictory, 
since the nature of evil is to sunder and divide. — Wo rex^ly that such 
organization of evil spirits is no more im]K>ssil>lo tlian tlie organization of 
wicked men, for the purpose of furthering their selfish ends. Common 
hatred to Gk>d may constitute a principle of union among them, as among 
men. 

Wicked men succeed in their plans only by adhering in some way to the good. Even 
a robt>er-horde must have laws, and there is a sort of ** honor among thieves." Else the 
world would be a pandemonium, and society would be what Hobbes called it : ** bellum 
onmium contra omnes.*' See art. on Satiin, by Whitehousc, in Hastings, Dictionary ot 
the Bible: ** Some personalities are ganglionic centres of a nervous system, incarna- 
tions of evil influence. The Diblo teaches that Satan is such a («ntre." 

Bat the organizing power of Satan has its limitations. Nevius, Demon-Possession, 
279— ^ Satan is not omniscient, and it is not (M>rtain that all demons are perfectly sub- 
ject to his control. Want of vigilance on his part, and p(>r8onal ambiticm in them, 
may obstruct and delay the execution of his plans, as among men." An English par- 
liamentarian comforted himself by saying : ** If the fleas were all of one mind, they 
would have us out of bed." Plato, Lysis, 214 — "The good are like one another, and 
friei^ to one another, and the bad are never at unity with one another or with them- 
selves; for they are passionate and n^stlena, and anything which is at variance and 
enmity with itseIC is not likely to l>e in union or harmony with any other thing." 

(/) The doctrine is morally pernicioiiH, as tninsferring the blame of 
human siirto the being or beings who tempt men thereto. — We reply that 



462 THE WORKS OF GOD. 

neither conscience nor Scriptore allows temptation to be an excose for sin, 
or regards Satan as having power to compel the human wilL The objection, 
moreover, contradicts our observation, — for only where the personal exist- 
ence of Satan is recognized, do wo find sin recognized in its true nature. 

The diabolic character of sia makes it more guilty and abhorred. The immorality 
lies, not in the maintenance, but in the denial, of the doctrine. Giving op the doctrine 
of Satan is connected with laxity in the administration of criminal Justice. Penalty 
comes to be regrarded as only deterrent or reformatory. 

(g ) The doctrine degrades man, by representing him as the tool and 
slave of Satan. — We reply that it does indeed show his actual state to be 
degraded, but only with the result of exalting our idea of his original 
dignity, and of his possible glory in Christ. The fact that man's sin was 
suggested from without, and not from within, may be the one mitigating 
circumstance which renders possible his redemption. 

It rather puts a stigma upon human nature to say that it is not fallen — that its pres- 
ent condition is its origrinal and normal state. Nor is it worth while to attribute to man 
a dlgrnity he does not possess, if thereby we deprive him of the dignity that may be his. 
Satan's sin was, in its essence, sin against the Holy Ghost, for which there can bo no 
" Fftther, fbrgire them, Ibr they knov not what thej do " ( Lake 23 : 34 ), since it was choosing evil with 
the mala gaudia mentis^ or the clearest intuition that it was evil. If there be no devil, 
then man himself is devil. It has been said of Voltaire, that without believing in a 
devil, he saw him everywhere— even where he was not. Christian, in Bunyan's Pil- 
grim's Progress, takes comfort when he finds that the blasphemous suggestions which 
came to him in the dark valley were suggestions from the fiend that pursued him. If 
all temptation is from within, our case would seem hopeless. But if "an enemy hath done 
this " ( Mat. 13 : 28 ), then there is hope. And so we may accept the maxim : ** Nullus diabolus, 
nullus Hedemptor." Unitarians have no Captain of their Salvation, and so have no 
Adversary against whom to contend. See Trench, Studies in the Gkispels, 17 ; Birks, 
Difficulties of Bollcf, 78^ 100; Ebrard, Dogmatik, 1 : 291-2»3. Many of the objections and 
answers mentioned above have been taken from Philippi, Glaubonslehre, 8:251-284, 
where a fuller statement of them may be found. 

HL Praotioai, uses op the Dootrinb op Angels. 

A. Uses of the doctrine of good angels. 

( a ) It gives us a new sense of the greatness of the divine resources, and 
of God*s grace in our creation, to think of the multitude of unfallen intel- 
ligences who executed the divine purposes before man appeared. 

(h) It strengthens our faith in God*s providential care, to know that 
spirits of so high rank are deputed to minister to creatures who are 
environed with temptations and are conscious of sin. 

(e) It teaches us humility, that beings of so much greater knowledge 
and x>ower than ours should gladly perform these unnoticed services, in 
behalf of those whose only claim upon them is that they are children of 
the same common Father. 

(d) It helps us in the struggle against sin, to learn that these messen- 
gers of God are near, to mark our wrong doing if we fall, and to sustain us 
if we resist temptation. 

( e ) It enlarges our conceptions of the dignity of our own being, and of 
the boundless possibilities of our future existence, to remember these 
forms of typical innocence and love, that praise and serve God unceasingly 
in heaven. 




PRACTICAL USES OF THE DOCTBINB OF ANGELS. 463 

Instanoe the appearanoe of angels in Jacob's life at Bethel (Gea. 28 : 12— Jacob's con- 
Tersion? ) and at Mahanaim (Geo. 32 : 1, 2 — two camps, of angels, on tho right hand and 
on the left; c/. Fl 34 : 7 — "Hm aa^l of JehoTah ammmpetli roud about than that tux him, ind delirentii 
thm " ) ; so too the Angel at Penuel that struggled with Jacob at his entering the prom- 
ised land ( Gen. 32 : M ; e/. loi. 12 : 8, 4 — "in kit manhood he had powor vith God : yoa, he had pover orer tho 
angil. «ai|nfailed" ), and "the angol vho hath redeemed mo from all etil " ( Gen. 48 : 16 ) to whom Jacob 
refers on his dying bed. Edmund Spenser, The Faerie Queene : *'And is there care in 
heayen ? and is there love In heavenly spirits to these creatures base That may com- 
passion of their evils move ? There is ; else much more wretched were the case Of men 
than beasts. But O, th* exceeding grace Of highest God that loves his creatures so. 
And all his works with mercy doth embrace. That blessed angels he sends to and fro 
To serve to wicked man, to serve his wicked foe I How oft do they their silver 
bowers leave And come to succor us who succor want I How oft do they with golden 
pinions cleave The flitting skies like fljing pursuivant, Against foul fiends to aid us 
militant I They for us fight ; they watch and duly ward. And thehr bright squadrons 
round about us plant ; And all for love, and nothing for reward. Oh, why should 
heavenly God for men have such regard I " 

It shows us that sin is not mere finiteness, to see these finite inteUigenccs that main- 
tained their integrity. Shakespeare, Henry VIII, 2:2— ** Ho counsels a divorce— a 
loss of her That, like a jewel, has hung twenty years About his neck, yet never lost her 
lustre; Of her that loves him with that excellence That angels love good men with; 
even of her That, when the greatest stroke of fortune falls. Will bless the king.** 
Measure for Measure, 2:2 — *' Man, proud man, Plays such fantastic tricks before 
high heaven. As makes the angels weep." 

B. Uses of ^he doctrine of evil angels. 

(a) It illnstrates the real nature of sin, and the depth of the min to 
which it may bring the soul, to reflect upon the present moral condition 
and eternal wretchedness to which these spirits, so highly endowed, have 
brought themselves by their rebellion against God. 

( & ) It inspires a salutary fear and hatred of the first subtle approaches 
of evil from within or from without, to remember that these may be the 
covert advances of a personal and malignant being, who seeks to overcome 
our virtue and to involve us in his own apostasy and destruction. 

( c ) It shuts us up to Ohrist, as the only Being who is able to deliver 
us or others from the enemy of aU good. 

{d) It teaches us that our salvation is wholly of grace, since for such 
multitudes of rebellious spirits no atonement and no renewal were provided 
— simple justice having its way, with no mercy to interpose or save. 

Philippl, in his Glaubenslehre, 8: 151-284, suggests the following relations of the doc- 
trine of Satan to the doctrine of sin : 1. Since Satan is a fallen angels who once was 
pure, evil is not self-existent or necessary. Sin does not belong to the substance 
which God created, but is a later addition. 2. Since Satan is a purely spiritual creature, 
sin cannot have its origin In mere eensuousness, or in the mere possession of a physical 
nature. 8. Since Satan is not a weak and poorly endowed creature, sin is not a necessary 
result of weakness and limitation. 4. Since Satan is confirmed in evU^ sin is not neces- 
sarily a transient or remediable act of will. 6. Since in Satan sin does not come to an end, 
sin is not a step of crcaturely development, or a stage of progress to something higher 
and better. On the uses of the doctrine, see also Van Oosterzee, Christian Dogmatics, 
1 : 316 : Robert Hall, Works, 3 : a5-51 ; Brooks, Satan and his Devices. 

" They never sank so low. They are not raised so high ; They never knew such 
depths of woe. Such heights of majesty. The Savior did not join Their nature to his 
own ; For them he shed no blood divine. Nor heaved a single groan." If no redemi)- 
tion has been provided for them, it may be because : 1. sin originated with them ; 2. 
the sin which they committed was "an eternal mn" (c/. Hark 3:29) ; 8. they sinned with 
clearer intellect and fuller knowledge than ours ( c/. Lnke 23 :34 ) ; 4. their incorporeal 
being aggravated their sin and made it analogous to our sinning against the Holy 



464 THE WORKS OF GOD. 

Spirit ( c/. laL 12:81, tt) ; 6. this incorporeal belii«r ffave no opportunity for Christ to 
objectify his crnice and visibly to join himself to them ( e/. Itl». B : 16 ) ; 6. their persistence 
in evil, in spite of their ^rowlngr Imowledge of the character of Ood as exhibited in 
human history, has rosultod in a hardening of heart which is not susceptible of 
salvation. 

Yet angels were created in Christ (OoL 1:16); they oonsistin him ((M.l:17); he must 
suffer in their sin ; God would save them, if he consistently could. Dr. G. W. Samson 
held that the Logos became an anird before he became man, and that this explains his 
appearances as "tka angvl of Jehorak" In the Old Testament ( 6«l S:!! ). Itis not asserted 
that aU fallen anirels shall be eternally tormented ( Rtr. 14 : 10 ) . In terms equally strong* 
( Mat 25 : 41 ; Bar. 20 : 10 ) the existence of a place of eternal punishment for wicked men is 
declared, but nevertheless we do not believe that all men will go there, in spite of the 
fiict that all men are wicked. The silence of Scripture with regard to a provision of 
salvation for fallen angels does not prove that there is no such provision. 2 IM. 2 : 4 
shows that evil angels have not received final judgment, but are in a temporary state 
of existence, and their flnal state is yet to be revealed. If God has not already pro- 
vided, may he not yet provide redemption for them, and the ''alaet uigab" (1 Cm. 5 : 21) be 
those whom God has predestinated to stand this future probation and be saved, while 
only those who persist in their rebellion will be consigned to the lake of Are and brim- 
stone (Rav. 20: 10)? 

The keeper of a young tigress patted her head and she licked his hand. But 
when she grow older she seized his hand with her teeth and began to craunch it. He 
pulled away his hand in shreds. He learned not to fondle a tigress. Let us learn not 
to fondle Satan. Let us not be ** ignonat of hit detioM " ( 2 Cor. 2 : 11 ). It is not well to keep 
loaded flreamis in the chimney comer. " They who fear the adder's sting will not come 
near her hissing/' Talmage : ** O Lord, help us to hear the serpent's rattle before we 
fc'el its fangs." Ian Maclaren, Cure of Souls, 215 — The pastor trembles for a soul, 
*^ wlien he Boes the destroyer hovering over it like a hawk poised in midair, and would 
have it gathered beneath Christ's wing." 

Thomas K. lk>echer: ** Suppose I lived on Broadway where the crowd was surging 
post in both directions all the time. Would I leave my doors and windows open, say- 
ing to the crowd of strangers : * Enter my door, pass through my hall, come into my 
parlor, make yourselves at home in my dining-room, go up Into my bedchambers ' ? 
No I I would have my windows and doors barred and locked against Intruders, to be 
opened only to me and mine and those I would have as companions. Yet here we see 
foolish men and women stretching out their arms and sajrlng to the spirits of the vasty 
deep : * Come in, and take possession of mo. Write with my hands, think with my 
brain, speak with my lips, walk with my feet, use me as a medium for whatever you 
will .' God respects the sanctity of man's spirit. Even Christ stands at the door and 
knocks. Holy Spirit, flU me, so that there shall be room for no- other P' (Rtr. 3: 20; 
IpL5:18.) 



PAET V. 

ANTHROPOLOGY, OB THE DOCTRINE OF MAN. 



CHAPTER I. 

PRELIMINARY. 

1. Man a Cbbation of God and a ChuiD of God. 

The fact of man's creation is declared in Gen. 1 : 27 — ** And God created 
man in his own image, in the image of God created he him " ; 2:7 — "And 
Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into 
his nostrils the breath of life ; and man became a living souL" 

(a) The Scriptures, on the one hand, negative the idea that man is the 
mere product of unreasoning natural forces. They refer his existence to a 
cause different from mere nature, namely, the creative act of Gk>d. 

Compare E«bmrB 12 : 9 — "the Fathar of spirits'* ; Hun. 16:22— "tha God of the spirits of aU flesh" ;27: 16-* 
"JehoTah, the God of the spirits of all flesh" ; Il6T. 22: 6 — "the God of the spirits of the propheu;* Bruoe, The 
Providential Order, 25— *' Faith In God may remain intact, thou^rb we concede that 
man in all his characteristics, physical and psychical, is no exception to the universal 
law of g^rowth, no breach in the continuity of the evolutionary process." By ** mere 
nature *' we mean nature apart from God. Our previous treatment of the doctrine of 
creation in ereneral has shown that the laws of nature are only the regrular methods of 
God, and that .the conception of a nature apart from God Is an irrational one. If the 
evolution of the lower creation cannot be explained without takln^r into account the 
originating agency of God, much less can the coming into being of man, the crown of 
all created things. Hudson, Divine Pedigree of Man : *^ Spirit in man is linked with, 
because derived from, God, who is spirit.'* 

(6) But, on the other hand, the Scriptures do not disclose the method 
of man's creation. Whether man's physical system is or is not derived, 
by natural descent, from the lower animals, the record of creation does not 
inform us. As the command "Let the earth bring forth living creatures *' 
( Gen. 1 : 24 ) does not exclude the idea of mediate creation, through 
natural generation, so the forming of man "of the dust of the ground*' 
( Gon. 2:7) does not in itself determine whether the creation of man's body 
was mediate or immediate. 

We may believe that man sustained to the highest preceding brute the same relation 
which the multiplied broad and fish sustained to the five loaves and two fishes 
( Hat. 14 : 19 ), or which the wine sustained to the water which was transformed at Cana 
( John 2 : 7-10 ), or which the multiplied oil sustained to the original oil in the O. T. miracle 
( 2 L 4 : 1>7 ). The " dost, " before the breathing of the spirit into it, may have been ani- 
mated dust. Natural means may have been used, so far as they would go. Sterrett, 
Ucason and Authority in Religion, 89—*^ Our heredity is from God, even though it be 
from lower forms of life, and our goal is also Grod, even though it be through imper- 
"sct manhocd.'* 

30 406 



4GG ABTHBOFOLOOTy OE THS DOCTRCni OF MAJT. 



Brohittoo does not make the idea of a Oeator iupcrfluoaa. beeaoK e iulmiu n is oolj 
the metbcfd of God. It fci perfe<;tlj oooiiflKent with a Scniiciiiml doccrlne of Ckeatioo 
tbat muD should eakeivr at the proper tine, gor e raed bj diffeieiit laws from the bmte 
cnation jr«c gnrwhm out of the brute. Just as the foundation of a hooae built of stooe 
k fierfectljr consistent with the vooden structure bulk upon it. AU depends upon the 
;'lan. An ath^-istic acd unde«iirnin«^ evolution cannot indnde man w lihuut ezdodins^ 
w(jat Chrl«tiani'>' rein^rds as esaeential to man; see Grifith-JoneB» Aaoent throoffh 
riirist, 43-73 B'lt a tbeistic evolution can recogniae the vhoie iauie a s of man's 
CTf-ation u f lOHiiy tb«* work of nature and the work of God. 

^'hurman, A.'4nfjeticiBm and Retifirion, fS— '" Vou are not what jrm hare oome from, 
but what ytm have become.** Huzlej- said of the brutes : ** Whet her from them or not, 
man u aflsuredj jr at A. of them." Pfleiderer, Philos. Belijnon, 1 : :>v — '* The religious dig- 
nUy of man rests after ail upon what he i«, not upon the mode and manner in which 
ly; has U^/me what he Is^*' Because he came/roia a beast, it do€« not follow that he i* 
a \itinnt. Nor does the fact that man's existence can be tzaoed back to a brute ancestry 
furnish any proper reasrm why the brute should become man. Here is a teleology 
whi^;h re<juirt« a divine Creatorship. 

J. M. Hrtrtniftn : **The theist must accept evolution if he would keep his argrument 
for the existence of God from the unity of design in nature. Unleas man is an end, 
he is an aw/maly. The greatest argument for God is the fact that all animate nature 
is r/ne vast nivl connected unity. Man has developed not from the ape, but away f mm 
the nvus. He was never anything but potential man. He did not, as man, come into 
being until he berxine a cr^nscious moral agent.** This conscious moral luiture, which 
we call pf^nvjnality, rr^iuires a divine Author, because it surpasses all the powers which 
can \tii fouml in th<; animal creation. Romanes, Mental Evolution in Animals, tells us 
that: 1. Mollusca l<,'am by experience; 2. Insects and spiden recognise ofEspring; 
3. Flshf^ make nMmtal association of objects by their similarity ; 4. Reptiles recognixe 
penoris; S. ifymffno(/tera, as be(« and acts, communicate ideas; 6>. Birds recognize 
pictorial rr;prf«(;ntations and understand words; 7. Rodents, as rats and foxes, under- 
stand m«:chanisnis ; 8. Monkeys and elephants learn to use tools ; 9. Anthropoid apes 
and dogs have indefinite morality. 

Hut it is definite and not indefinite morality which differences man from the brute. 
Drumniond, in his Ascent of Man, concedes that man passed through a period when he 
resembliMl the ape more than any known animal, but at the same time declares that 
m» anthm(K^iid ape cfiuld develop into a man. The brute can be defined in terms of 
man, but man cannot be defined in terms of the brute. It is significant that in insan- 
ity the higher endowments of man disappear in an order precisely the reverse of that 
in which, accfmling to the development theory, they have been acquired. The highest 
part of man twitters first. The last added is first to suffer. Man moreover can transmit 
his own ac<iuisitions to his posterity, as the brute cannot. Weismann, Heredity, 3: 69 
— **Tho evolution of music dr)es not depend upon any increase of the musical faculty 
or any alteration in the inherent physical nature of man, but solely upon the power of 
trHiiHmitting the intellectual achievements of each generation to those which, follow. 
ThiM, HioHJ than anything, is the cause of the superiority of men over animals— this, 
and not merely human faculty, although it may be admitted that this latter is much 
higher tiian in animals." To this utterance of Weismann we would add that human 
proKreHH dfipends quite as much upon man's power of reception as upon man's power 
of triinffinlHMion. Interpretation must equal expression ; and, in this interpretation of 
the past, man has a guarantee of the future which the brute does not possess. 

{r) I'Hychology, however, comes in to help our interpretation of Script- 
iir(\ The riulicul differences between man's soul and the principle of 
int<)lIiK<iiH!<) in the lower animalBy especially man's possession of self-con- 
HciouHiH'HH, general ideas, the moral sense, and the power of self-determin- 
ation, hIiow that tliat which chiefly constitutes him man could not have been 
derivt^l, })y any natural process of development, from the inferior creatures. 
We are compelled, then, to })elieve that God's "breathing into man's nos- 
trils the })reath of life " (Gen. 2 : 7), though it was a mediate creation as 
pn^HUpposing existing material in the shape of animal forms, was yet an 
immodiato creation in the sense that only a divine reinforcement of the 




HAir A ORGATIO^ OP GOD AND A CHILD OP GOD. 467 

process of life turned the animal into man. In other words, man came 
not from the brute, but through the brute, and the same immanent God 
who had previously created the brute created also the man. 

Tennyson, In Memoriam, XLV ~^The taby new to earth and sky. What time his 
tender palm is pressed Against the circle of the breast. Has never thou^rht that * this is 
I ' : But as he grrows he grathers much. And learns the use of * I * and * me,* And finds 
* I am not what I see. And other than the things I touch.* So rounds he to a separate 
mind From whence clear memory may begin. As thro* the frame that binds him in His 
isolation grows defined.'* Fiohte called that the birthday of his child, when the child 
awoke to self-consciousness and said ** I.*' Memory goes back no further than language. 
Knowledge of the ego is objective, before it is subjective. The child at first speaks of 
himself in the third person : *' Henry did so and so.'* Hence most men do not remem- 
ber what happened before their third y^ar, though Samuel Miles Hopldns, Memoir, 20, 
remembered what must have happened when he was only 28 months old. Only a 
conscious person remembers, and he remembers only as his will exerts itself in 
attention. 

Jean Paul Rlchter, quoted in Ladd, Philosophy of Mind, 110—** Never shall I forget 
the phenomenon in myself, never till now recited, when I stood by the birth of my 
own self-consciousness, the place and time of which are distinct in my memory. On a 
certain forenoon, I stood, a very young child, within the house-door, and was looking 
out toward the wood-pile, as in an instant the inner revelation * I am I,* like lightning 
from heaven, flashed and stood brightly before me ; in that moment I had seen myself 
as I, for the first time and forever." 

HiJfTding, Outlines of Psychology, 8— "The beginning of conscious life is to be 
placed probably before birth. • . . Sensations only faintly and dimly distinguished 
from the general feeling of vegetative comfort and discomfort. Still the experiences 
undergone before birth perhaps suflQce to form the foundation of the consciousness of 
an external world." Hill, Genetic Philosophy, 282, suggests that this early state, in 
which the child speaks of self in the third person and is devoid of selZ-consdousness, 
corresponds to the brute condition of the race, before it had reached self -consciousness, 
attained language, and become man. In the race, however, there was no heredity to 
predetermine self-consciousness — it was a new acquisition, marking transition to a 
superior order of being. 

Connecting these remarks with our present subject, we assert that no brute ever yet 
said, or thought, ** I.'* With this, then, we may begin a series of simple distinctions 
between man and the brute, so far as the immaterial principle in each is concerned. 
These are mainly compiled from writers hereafter mentioned. 

1. The brute is oonsdous, but man is self-conscious. The brute does not objectify 
self. ** If the pig could once say, * I am a pig,' it would at once and thereby cease to be 
a pig.'* The brute does not distinguish itself from its sensations. The brute has per- 
ception, but only the man has apperception, t. e., perception accompanied by reference 
of it to the self to which it belongs. 

2. The brute has only percepts ; man has also concepts. The brute knows white 
things, but not whiteness. It remembers things, but not thoughts. Man alone has the 
power of abstraction, <. e., the power of deriving abstract ideas from particular things 
or experiences. 

3. Hence the brute has no language. ** Language is the expression of general notions 
by symbols " ( Harris ). Words are the symbols of concepts. Where there are no 
concepts there can bo no words. The parrot utters cries ; but *^ no parrot ever yet 
spoke a true word." Since language is a sign, it presupposes the existence of an intel- 
lect capable of understanding the sign,— in short, language is the effect of mind, not 
the cause of mind. See Mivart, in Brit. Quar., Oct. 1881 : 154-172. ^' The ape's tongue 
is eloquent in his own dispraise." James, Psychology, 2: 356— "The notion of a sign 
as such, and the general purpose to apply it to everything, is the distinctive character- 
istic of man.** Why do not animals speak ? Because they have nothing to say, i, e., 
have no general ideas which words might express. 

4. The brute forms no judgments, e. 0., that this is like thalf accompanied with belief. 
Hence there is no sense of the ridiculous, and no laughter. James, Psychology, 2 : 300 
— *' The brute does not associate ideas by similarity .... Genius in man is the pos- 
session of this power of association in an extreme degree." 

6. The brute has no reasoning— no sense that this follows from t/iot, accompanied by 
a fteling that the sequence is necessary. Association of ideas without judgment is the 



468 AITTHROPOLOGY, OR THE DOCTRINE OF MAN. 

typical process of the bnito mind, thougrh not that of the mind of man. See IfQud, 
5:40^-409,575^581. Man's dream-life is the best analogruo to the mental life of the 
brute. 

6. The brute has no greneral ideas or intuitions, as of space, time, substance, cause, 
rij^ht. Hence there is no generalizing, and no proper experience or progress. There 
is no capacity for improvement in animals. The brute cannot be trained, except in 
certain inferior matters of association, where independent judgment is not required. 
No animal makes tools, uses clothes, cooks food, breeds other animals for food. No 
hunter's dog, however long its observation of its master, ever learned to put wood on 
a fire to keep itself from freezing. Even the rudest stone implements show a break in 
continuity and mark the introduction of man ; see J. P. Cook, Credentials of Science, 
14. **The dog can see the printed page as well as a man can, but no dog was ever 
taught to read a book. The animal cannot create in its own mind the thoughts of the 
writer. The physical in man, on the contrary, is only an aid to the spiritual. Educa- 
tion is a trained capacity to discern the inner meaning and deeper relations of things. 
So the universe is but a symbol and expression of spirit, a garment in which an invisi- 
ble Power has robod his majesty and glory " ; see S. S. Times, April 7, 1900. In man, 
mind first became supreme. 

7. The brute has determination, but not self-determination. There is no freedom of 
choice, no conscious forming of a purpose, and no self-movement toward a predeter- 
mined end. The donkey is determined, but not self-determined ; he is the victim of 
heredity and environment ; he acts only as he is acted upon. Harris, Philos. Basis of 
Theism, 537-554 — ** Man, though implicated in nature through his bodily organization, 
is in his personality supernatural ; the brute is wholly submerged in nature. . . . Man is 
like a ship in the sea — in it, yet above it —guiding his course, by observing the heav- 
ens, even against wind and current. A brute has no such power ; it is in nature like a 
balloon, wholly immersed in air, and driven about by its currents, with no power of 
steering.** Calderwood, Philosophy of Evolution, chapter on Right and Wrong : " The 
grand distinction of human life is self-control in the field of action — control over all 
the animal impulses, so that these do not spontaneously and of themselves determine 
activity" [as they do in the brute]. By what Mivart calls a process of "inverse 
anthropomorphism," we clothe the brute with the attributes of freedom ; but it does 
not really possess them. Just as we do not transfer to God all our human imperfec- 
tions, so we ought not to transfer all our human perfections to the brute, '* reading 
our full selves in life of lower forms.'* The brute has no power to choose between 
motives ; it simply obex's motive. The necessitarian philosophy, therefore, is a correct 
and excellent philosophy for the brute. But man's power of initiative — in short, man*s 
free will — renders it impossible to explain his higher nature as a mere natural devel- 
opment from the inferior creatures. Even Huxley has said that, taking mind into 
the account, there is between man and the highest beasts an "enormous gulf," a 
" divergence immeasurable " and " practically infinite." 

8. The brute has no conscience and no religious nature. No dog ever brought back 
to the butcher the meat it had stolen. " The aspen trembles without fear, and dogs 
skulk without guilt." The dog mentioned by Darwin, whoso behavior in presence of a 
newspaper moved by the wind seemed to testify to *a sense of the supernatural,* was 
merely exhibiting the irritation due to the sense of an unknown future ; see James, Will 
to Believe, 79. The bearing of flogged curs does not throw light upon the nature of 
conscience. If ethics is not hedonism, if moral obligation is not a refined utilitarianism, 
if the right is something distinct from the good we get out of it, then there must be a 
flaw in the theory that man's conscience ia simply a development of brute instincts; 
and a reinforcement of brute life from the divine source of life must be postulated in 
order to account for the appearance of man. Upton, Hibbert Lectures, 185-187— "Is 
the spirit of man derived from the soul of the animal? No, for neither one of these 
has self-existence. Both are self-differentiations of God. The latter is simply God's 
preparation for the former." Calderwood, Evolution and Man*s Place in Nature, 337, 
4peaks of " the impossibility of tracing the origin of man's rational life to evolution 
f^^ia a lower life There are no physical forces discoverable in nature suflQcicnt 

i account for the appearance of this Ufe." Shalcr, Interpretation of Nature, 186 — 
" Man's place has been won by an entire change in the limitations of his psychic devel- 

Vpmont The old bondage of the mind to the body ia swept away In this 

new freedom we find the one dominant characteristic of man, the feature which 
entitles us to class him as an entirely new class of animaL" 



MAK A OREATION OF GOD AND A CHILD OF GOD. 469 

John Burroughs, Ways of Nature : ** Animal life parallels human life at many points, 
but It is in another plane. Somethinsr ifuldes the lower animals, but it is not thougrht ; 
jomethin^r restrains them, but it is not judgment; they are provident without 
prudence ; they are active without industry ; they are skilful without practice ; they are 
wise without knowledge ; they are rational without reason ; they are deceptive without 
guile. .... When they are Joyf uU they sing or they play ; when they are distressed, 
they moan or they cry ; . . . . and yet I do not suppose they experience the emotion 
of joy or sorrow, or anger or love, as we do, because these feelings in them do not 
involve reUcction, memory, and what we call the higher nature, as with us." Their 
instinct is intelligence directed outward, never inward, as in man. They share with 
man the emotions of his animal nature, but not of his moral or aesthetic nature ; they 
know no altruism, no moral code." Mr. Burroughs maintains that we have no proof 
that animals in a state of nature can reflect, form abstract ideas, associate cause and 
effect. Animals, for instance, that store up food for the winter simply follow a provi- 
dent instinct but do not take thought for the future, any more than does the tree that 
forms new buds for the coming season. He sums up his position as follows : ** To 
attribute human motives and faculties to the animals is to caricature them ; but to 
put us in such relation to them that we feel their kinship, that we see their lives 
embosomed in the same iron necessity as our own, that we see in their minds a 
humbler manifestation of the same psychic power and intelligence that culminates and 
is conscious of itself in man— that, I take it, is the true humanization.^* We assent to 
all this except the ascription to human life of the same iron necessity that rules the 
animal creation. Man is man, because his free will transcends the limitations of the 
brute. 

While we grant, then, that man is the last stage in the development of life and that 
he has a brute ancestry, we regard him also as the offspring of God. The same God 
who was the author of the brute became in due time the creator of man. Though man 
came through the brute, he did not come from the brute, but from God, the Father of 
spirits and the author of all life. CEdipus' terrific oracle : ** Mayst thou ne'er know 
the truth of what thou art I *' might well be uttered to those who believe only in the 
brute origin of man. Pascal says it is dangerous to let man see too clearly that he is 
on a level with the animals unless at the same time we show him his greatness. The 
doctrine that the brute is imperfect man is logically connected with the doctrine that 
man is a perfect brute. Thomas Carlyle : ** If this brute philosophy is true, then man 
should go on all fours, and not lay claim to the dignity of being moral.'* G. F. Wright, 
Ant. and Origin of Human Race, lecti>re IX— *^ One or other of the lower animals may 
exhibit all the faculties used by a child of fifteen months. The difference may seem 
very little, but what there is is very important. It is like the difference in direction in 

the early stages of two separating curves, which go on forever diverging The 

probability is that both in his bodily and in his mental development man appeared as a 
sport in nature, and leaped at once in some single pair from the plane of irrational 
being to the possession of the higher powers that have ever since characterized him 
and dominated both his development and his history." 

Scripture seems to teach the doctrine that man's nature is the creation of Qod. Gen. 
2: 7 — "JelioTth God formed mui of the dost of the groond, and breaUied into hit nostrils tho breath ofUfe; and man 
became a liring soul " —appears, says Hovey ( State of the Impen. Dead, 14'), " to distinguish 
the vital informing principle of human nature from its material part, pronouncing the 
former to be more directly from God, and more akin to him, than the latter." So in 
Zeoh. 12:1 — "Jehovah, vho stretcheth forth the heaTens, and lajeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the 
spirit of man within him" — the soul is recognized as distinct in nature from the body, and of 
a dignity and value far beyond those of any material organism. Job 32: 8— "there is a 
spirit in man, and the breath of the Almighty giveth them onderstanding " ; Sool. 12 : 7 — " Uie dost retometh to the 
earth as it vas, and the spirit retometh unto God vho gave it" A sober view of the similarities and 
differences between man and the lower animals may be found in Lloyd Morgan, Animal 
Life and Intelligence. See also Martineau, Types, 2 : 65, 140, and Study, 1 : 180 ; 2 : 0, 13, 
184,350; Hopkins, Outline Study of Man, 8 : 23 ; Chadboume, Instinct, 187-211 ; Porter, 
Hum. Inteirect, 884, 386, 397 ; Bascom, Science of Mind, 295-305 ; Mansel, Metaphysics, 49, 
50; Princeton Rev., Jan. 3881 : 101-128; Henslow, in Nature. May 1, 1879 : 21, 22; Perrier, 
Remains, 2: 39; Argyll, Unity of Nature, 117-119; Bib. Sac., 29:275-282; Max MUller, 
Lectures on Philos. of Language, no. 1, 2. 3; F. W. Robertson, Lectures on Genesis, 21 ,* 
LeConte, in Princeton Rev., May, 1884: 236-261; Lindsay, Blind in Lower Animals; 
Romanes, Mental Evolution in Animals; Fiske, The Destiny of Mao. 



470 AHTHBOPOLOOY, OB THE DOGTBUSTB OF MAK. 

(ef) Oomparative physiology, moreover, has, up to fhe present time, 
done nothing to forbid the extension of this doctrine to man's body. No 
single instanoe has yet been adduced of the transformation of one animal 
species into another, either by natural or artificial selection ; much less has 
it been demonstrated that the body of the brute has ever been developed 
into that of man. All evolution implies prog^ress and reinforcement of life, 
and is unintelligible except as the immanent Gk>d gives new impulses to the 
process. Apart from the direct agency of €k>d, the view that man's 
physical system is descended by natural generation from some ancestral 
simian form can be regarded only as an irrational hypothesis. Since the 
soul, then, is an immediate creation of Gk)d, and the forming of man's body 
is mentioned by the Scripture writer in direct connection with this creation 
of the spirit, man's body was in this sense an immediate creation also. 

For the theory of natural selection, see Darwin, Orifirin of Species, 89S-124, and Descent 
of Mao, 2 : 368-^7 ; Huxley, Critiques and Addresses, 241-4W0, Man's Place in Nature, 71- 
188, Lay Sermons, 833, and art. : Biology, in Encya Brltannlca, 0th ed. ; Bomancs, 
Scientitic Evidences of Organic Evolution. The theory holds that, in the struggle for 
existence, the varieties- best adapted to their surroundings succeed in maintaining and 
reproducing themselves, while the rest die out. Thus, by gradual change and improve- 
ment of lower into higher forms of life, man has been evolved. We grant that Darwin 
has disclosed one of the important features of God's method. We concede the partial 
truth of hiB theory. We find it supported by the vertebrate structure and nervous 
organization which man has in common with the lower animals ; by the tacts of embry- 
onic development; of rudimentary organs; of common diseases and remedies; and of 
reversion to former types. But we refuse to regard natural selection as a complete 
explanation of the history of life, and that for the foUowing roasons : 

1. It gives no account of the origin of substance, nor of the origin of variations. 
Darwinism simply says that '* round stones will roll down hill further than flat ones ** 
( Gray, Natural Science and Religion ). It accounts for the selection, not for the 
creation, of forms. **" Natural selection originates nottiing. It is a destructlye, not a 
creative, principle. If we must idealize it aa a positive force, we must think of it, not 
as the preserver of the Attest, but as the destroyer, that follows ever in the wake of 
creation and devours the failures ; the scavenger of creation, that takes out of the way 
forms which are not fit to live and reproduce themselves" ( Johnson, on Theistic 
Evolution, in Andovcr Review, April, 1884:363-881). Natural selection is only unin- 
telligent repression. Darwin's Origin of Species is in fact *" not the Genesis, but the 
Exodus, of living forms." Schurman: *'The survival of the fittest does nothing to 
explain the arrival of the fittest *' ; see also DeVrios, Species and Yarietiea, ad Jlnenu 
"Darwin himself acknowledged that *^ Our ignorance of the laws of variation is pro- 
found. . . . The cause of each slight variation and of each monstrosity lies much more 
in the nature or constitution of the organism than in the nature of tbe surrounding 
conditions *' ( quoted by Mivart, Lessons from Nature, 280-301 ). Weismann has there- 
fore modified the Darwinian theory by asserting that there would be no development 
unless there were a spontaneous, innate tendency to variation. In this innate tendency 
we see, not mere nature, but the work of an ori^nating and superintending God. 
B. M. Caillard, in Con temp. Rev., Dec 1803 : 873-881— "Spirit was the moulding power, 
from the beginning, of those lower forms which would ultimately l>ecome man. Instead 
of the physical derivation of the soul, we propose the spiritual derivation of the body." 

2. Some of the most important forms appear suddenly in the geological record, with- 
out connecting links to unite them with the past. The first fishes are the Ganoid, large 
in size and advanced in type. There are no intermediate gradations between the ape 
and man. Huxley, in Man's Place in Nature, 04, tells us that the lowest gorilla has a 
skull capacity of 24 cubic inches, whereas the highest gorilla has 34^. Over a^rainst this, 
the lowest man has a skull capacity of 62 ; though men with less than 65 are invariably 
idiotic ; the highest man has 114. Professor Burt G. Wilder of Cornell University : 
** The largest ape-brain is only half as large as the smallest normal human." Wallace, 
Darwinism, 458—" The average human brain weighs 48 or 40 ounces ; the average ape's 
brain is only 18 ounoes." The brain of Daniel Webster weighed 63 ounces; but Dr. 



KAK A CREATION OF GOD AND A CHILD OF GOD. 471 

fiastian tells of an imbecile whose intellectual deficiency was oonerenital, yet whose 
brain weighed 56 ounces. Large heads do not always indicate great intellect. Profes- 
sor Virchow points out that the Greeks, one of the most intellectual of nations, are 
also one of the smallest-headed of all. Bain : ** While the size of the brain increases in 
arithmetical proportion, intellectual range increases in geometrical proportion." 

Respecting the Enghis and Neanderthal crania. Huxley says: **The fossil remains 
of man hitherto discovered do not seem to me to take us appreciably nearer to that 
lower pithecoid form by the modification of which he has probably become what he is. 
... In vain have the links which should bind man to the monkey been sought : not a 
single one is there to show. The so-called Protanthropoa who should exhibit this link 
has not been found. . . . None have been found that stood nearer the monkey than the 
men of to-day.** Huxley argues that the difference between man and the gorilla is 
smaller than that between the gorilla and some apes ; if the gorilla and the apes con- 
stitute one family and have a common origin, may not man and the gorilla have a 
common ancestry also? We reply that the space between the lowest ape and the 
highest gorilla is filled in with numberless intermediate gradations. The space between 
the lowest man and the highest man is also filled in with many types that shade off 
one Into the other. But the space between the highest gorilla and the lowest man is 
absolutely vacant; there are no intermediate tyi)e8; no connecting links between 
the ape and man have yet been found. 

Professor Virchow has also very recently expressed his belief that no relics of any 
predecessor of man have yet been discovered. He said: **In my judgment, no skull 
hitherto discovered can be regarded as that of a predecessor of man. In the course 
of the last fifteen years we have had opportunities of examining skulls of all the 
various races of mankind— even of the most savage tribes; and among them all no 
group has been observed differing in its essential characters from the general human 
type. . . . Out of all the skulls found in the lake-dwellings there is not one that lies 
outside the boundaries of our present population.*' Dr. Eugene Dubois has discovered 
in the Post-pliocene deposits of the island of Java the remains of a preeminently 
hominine anthropoid which he calls Pithecanthropus erectus. Its cranial capacity 
approaches the physiological minimum in man, and is double that of the gorilla. The 
thigh bone is in form and dimensions the absolute analogue of that of man, and gives 
evidence of having supported a habitually erect body. Dr. Dubois unhesitatingly 
places this extinct Javan ape as the intermediate form between man and the true 
anthropoid apes. Haeckel ( in The Nation, Sept. 15, 1898 ) and Keane ( in Man Past 
and Present, 3), regard the PUhccanthrfypus as a ** missing link." But *' Nature'* 
regards it as the remains of a human microcephalous idiot. In addition to all this, it 
deserves to be noticed that man does not degenerate as we travel back in time. ** The 
Enghis skull, the contemporary of the mammoth and the cave-bear, is as large as the 
average of to-day, and might have belonged to a philosopher." The monkey nearest 
to man in physical form is no more intelligent than the elephant or the bee. 

3. There are certain facts which mere heredity cannot explain, such for example as 
the origin of the working-bee from the queen and the drone, neither of which produces 
honey. The working-bee, moreover, does not transmit the honey-making instinct to 
its posterity ; for it is sterile and childless. If man had descended from the conscience- 
less brute, we should expect him, when degraded, to revert to his primitive type. On 
the contrary, he does not revert to the brute, but dies out instead. The theory can 
give no explanation of beauty in the lowest forms of life, such as molluscs and diatoms. 
Darwin grants that this beauty must be of use to its possessor, in order to t)e consist- 
ent with its origination through natural selection. But no such use has yet been 
shown ; for the creatures which possess the beauty often live in the dark, or have no 
eyes to see. So, too, the large brain of the savage is beyond his needs, and is inconsist- 
ent with the principle of natural selection which teaches that no organ can perma- 
nently attain a size unrequired by its needs and its environment. See Wallace, Natural 
Selection. 338-360. G. F. Wright, Man and the Glacial Epoch, 242-301— "That man's 
bodily organization is in some way a development from some extinct member of the 
animal kingdom allied to the anthropoid apes is scarcely any longer susceptible of 
doubt. . . . But he is certainly not descended from any extgtUig species of anthro- 
poid apes. . . . When once mind became supreme, the bodily adjustment must have 
been rapid, if indeed it is not necessary to suppose that the bodily preparation for 
the highest mental faculties was instantaneous, or by what Is called in nature a sport,*^ 
With this statement of Dr. Wright we substantially agree, and therefore differ from 



472 AXTHSOPOL06T, OB THB DOCTSDnC OF MAJT. 



Sbeddwbenhefliji that there iBJottM much ifwn for wuppotiag tbax monkejs aie 
deg ene r a te men, mb that men are improred mon ke j a . Shakespeare. TImon of Athens* 
l:l:S49.seemstohaTeUntedthe Tiev of Dr.^edd: ** TVe strain of man *s bred out 
into baboon and monkey," Bishop Wilberf oroe asked HuxJey whether he was related 
to an ape on his giandfather's or grandmother's skte^ Huxley replied that he should 
prefer such a relationship to baring for an an o pa to r a man who used his position as a 
minister of religion to ridicule truth which he did not comprehend. '^Mamma.aml 
descended from a monkey?** ** I do not know, William, I nerer met any of your 
f^ither's people." 

4. No species is yet known to hare been produced either by artillcial or t7 natural 
selection. Huxley, Lay Sermons, 3S ~ ** It is not abaolntely proren that a group of 
ftwitmiia having ail the characters exhibited by species in nature has erer been origi- 
nated by selection, whether artificial or natural ** ; Man's Place in Nature, 107 — '* Our 
acoeptaooe of the Darwinian hypothesis must be provisional, so lon^ as one link in the 
chain of evidence is wanting ; and so long as all the anfmalu and plants certainly pro- 
duced by selective breeding from a common stock are fertile with one another, that 
link will be wanting." Huxley has more recently declared that the missinff proof has 
been found in the descent of the modem horse with one toe, from Hipparion with two 
toes, Anchitberium with three, and Orohippus with four. Even if this were demon- 
strated, we should stfll maintain that the only proper analogue was to be found in that 
artificial selection by which man produces new varieties, and that natural selection can 
bring about no useful results and show no progross, unless it be the method and revela- 
tion of a wise and designing mind. In other words, selection implies intelligence and 
will, and therefore cannot be exclusively natursL Mivart, Han and Apes, 19S ~ *' If it 
is incTinoeivable and impossible for man's body to be developed or to exist without 
his informing soul, we conclude that, as no natural process accounts for the different 
kind of soul — one capable of articulately expressing general conceptions, — so no 
merely natural process can account for the origin of the body informed by it — a body 
to which such an intellectual faculty was so essentially and intinuitely related.^ Thus 
Mivart, who once considered that evolution could account for man's body, now holds 
instead that it can account neither for man's body nor for his soul, and calls natural 
selection ^ a puerile hypothesis " ( Lessons from Nature, 300; Basays and Criticisms, 
2:289-314). 

(e) While we concede, then, that man has a bnite ancestry, we make 
two claims by way of qualification and explanation : first, that the laws 
of organic development which have been followed in man's origin are only 
the methods of God and proofs of his creatorship ; secondly, that man, 
when he appears upon the scene, is no longer bmte, bat a self-conscious 
and self -determining being*, made in the image of his Creator and capable 
of free moral decision between good and eviL 

Both man's original creation and his new creation in regeneration are creations from 
within, rather than from without. In both cases, God builds the new upon the basis 
of the old. Man is not a product of blind forces, but is rather an emanation from that 
same divine life of which the brute was a lower manifestation. The fact that God 
used preexisting material does not prevent his authorship of the result. The wine in 
the miracle was not water because water had been used in the making of it, nor is man 
a brute because the brute has made some contributions to his creation. Professor John 
H. Strong : ** Some who freely allow the presence and power of God in the age-long 
process seem nevertheless not clearly to see that, in the final result of finished man, 
God successfully revealed himself. God*s work was never really or fully done ; man 
was a compound of brute and man ; and a compound of two such elements could not 
be said to possess the qualities of either. God did not really succeed in bringing moral 
personality to birth. The evolution was incomplete ; man is still on all fours ; he cannot 
sin. because he was begotten of the brute ; no fall, and no regeneration, is conceivable. 
Wo assert, on the contrary, that, though man came throitoh the brute, he did not come 
from the brute. He came from God, whose immanent life he reveals, whose image he 
reflects in a finished moral personality. Because God succeeded, a fall was possible. 
We can believe in the age-long creation of evolution, provided only that this evolution 
oomplotod itself. With that proviso, sin remains and the fail.'* See also A. H. Strong, 
Christ in Creation, 183-180. 




MAN A CREATION OF GOD AND A CHILD OF GOD. 473 

JiXi atheistic and unteleolofirical evolution is a reversion to the savage view of animals 
as brethren, and to the heathen idea of a sphynx-man growinsr out of the brute. 
Darwin himself did not deny God's authorship. He closes his first great book with the 
declaration that life, with all its potencies, was orierinaily breathed ''by the Creator ** 
into the first forms of organic being. And in his letters ho refers with evident satisfac- 
tion to Charles Kingsley's finding nothing in the theory which was inconsistent with 
an earnest Christian faith. It was not Darwin, but disciples like Hacckel, who put for- 
ward the theory as making the hypothesis of a Creator superfluous. We grant the 
principle of evolution, but we r^:ard it as only the method of the divine intelligence, 
and must moreover consider it as preceded by an original creative act, introducing veg- 
etable and animal life, and as supplemented by other creative acts, at the introduction 
of man and at the incarnation of Christ. Chad wick. Old and New Unitarianism, 38— 
** What seemed to wreck our faith in human nature [ its origin from the brute] has 
been its grandest confirmation. For nothing argues the essential dignity of man more 
clearly than his triumph over the limitations of his brute inheritance, while the long 
way that he has come is prophecy of the moral heights undreamed of that await his 
tireless feet.'* All this is true if we regard human nature, not as an undesigned result 
of atlieistic evolution, but as the efflux and reflection of the divine personality. 
R. E. Thompson, in 8. S. Times, Dec. 29, 1906 — " The greatest fact in heredity is our 
descent from God, and the grreatest fact in environment is his presence in human life 
at every point.** 

The atheistic conception of evolution is well satirized in the verse : *' There was an ape 
in days that were earlier ; Centuries passed and his hair became curlier ; Centuries more 
and his thumb gave a twist. And he was a man and a Positivist.** That this concep- 
tion is not a necessary conclusion of modern science, is clear from the statements of 
Wallace, the author with Darwin of the theory of natural selection. Wallace believes 
that man's body was developed from the brute, but he thinks there have been three 
breaks in continuity: 1. the appearance of life; 2. the appearance of sensation and 
consciousness ; and 3. the appearance of spirit. These seem to correspond to 1. vege- 
table ; 2. animal ; and 3. human life. He thinks natural selection may account for 
man's place in nature, but not for man's place cihox>t nature, as a spiritual being. See 
Wallace, Darwinism, 445-478— *'I fully accept Mr. Darwin's conclusion as to the essen- 
tial identity of man's bodily structure with that of the higher mammalia, and his 
descent from some ancestral form common to man and the anthropoid apes.*' But the 
conclusion that man's higher faculties have also been derived from the lower animals 
*' appears to me not to be supported by adequate evidence, and to be directly opposed 
to many well-ascertained facts '* (461). . . . The mathematical, the artistic and musical 
faculties, are results, not causes, of advancement, — they do not help in the struggle 
for existence and could not have been developed by natural selection. The intro- 
duction of life (vegetable), of consciousness (animal), of higher faculty (human), 
point clearly to a world of spirit, to which the world of matter is subordinate ( 474-176 ). 
. . . Man's intellectual and moral faculties could not have been developed from the 
animal, but must have had another origin ; and for this origin we can find an adequate 
cause only in the world of spirit.*' 

Wallace, Natural Selection, 838— ^' The average cranial capacity of the lowest savage 
is probably not less than five-sixths of that of the highest civilized races, while the brain 
of the anthropoid apes scarcely amounts to one-third of that of man, in both cases 
taking the average ; or the proportions may be represented by the following figures : 
anthropoid apes, 10 ; savages, 26 ; civilized man, 33.'* Ibid., 360—*' The inference I would 
draw from this class of phenomena is, that a superior intelligence has guided the devel- 
opment of man in a definite direction and for a special purpose, just as man guides the 
development of many animal and vegetable forms. . . . The controlling action of a 
higher intelligence is a necessary part of the laws of nature, just as the action of all 
surrounding organisms is one of the agencies in organic development, — else the laws 
which govern the material universe are insufficient for the production of man.'* Sir 
Wm. Thompson ; *' That man could be evolved out of inferior animals is the wildest 
dream of materialism, a pure assumption which offends me alike by its folly and ^y its 
arrogance.'* Hartmann, In his Anthropoid Apes, 302-306, while not despairing of ** the 
possibility of discovering the true link between the world of man and mammals,** 
declares that *' that purely hypothetical being, the common ancestor of man and apes, 
is still to be found,** and that*' man cannot have descended from any of the fossil 
species which have hitherto come to our notice, nor yet from any of the species of apes 
now extant.'* See Dana, Amer. Joum. Sdenoe and Arts, 1876 : 251, and Geology, 603, 



474 ANTHROPOLOOY, OR THE DOCTRINE OF MAIC. 

604 ; Lotze, Mikrokosmos, vol. I, bk. 8, obap. 1 ; Mlvart, Ctenesls of Species, 808-222, 2S^ 
907, Man and Apes, 88, 14$^102, LeaBona from Nature, 13&-242, 280-aoi, The Cat, and Ency- 
dop. Biitannica, art. : Apes ; Quatrefages, Natural History of Man, 64-87 ; Bp. Temple, 
Hampton Lect, 1884 : 161-180 ; Dawson, Story of the Earth and Man, 331-GS9 ; Duke of 
Ar^ll, Primeval Man, 88-75; Asa Gray, Natural Science and Kclifirion ; Schmid, Theo- 
ries of Darwin, 115-140 ; Carpenter, Mental Physiology, 50 ; Mcllvaine, Wisdom of Holy 
Scripture, 55-86 ; Bible Commentary, 1 : 43 ; Martensen, Dogmatics, 186 ; Le Conte, in 
Princeton Rev., Nov. 1878 : 776-803 ; Zl^ckler Urffeschichte, 81-106 ; Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 
1 : 499-515. Also, see this Compendium, pages 802, 393. 

(/) The truth that man is the offepring of Gbd implies the oorrelatiye 
truth of a oommon divine Fatherhood. God is Father of all men, in that 
he originates and sustains them as personal beings like in nature to him- 
self. Even toward sinners God holds this natural relation of Father. It 
is his fatherly love, indeed, which provides the atonement. Thus the 
demands of holiness are met and the prodigal is restored to the privileges 
of sonship which have been forfeited by transgression. This natural 
Fatherhood, therefore, does not exclude, but prepares the way for, Gx>d*s 
special Fatherhood toward those who have been regenerated by his Spirit 
and who have believed on his Sou ; indeed, since all God's creations take 
place in and through Christ, there is a natural and physical sonship of all 
men, by virtue of their relation to Christ, the eternal Son, which antedates 
and prepares the way for the spiritual sonship of those who join themselves 
to him by faith. Man's natural sonship underlies the history of the fali, 
and qualifies the doctrine of Sin. 

Texts referring' to Ood*s natural and common Fatherhood are : VaL B : iO ~ " Eat* w not 
allone&ther L Abraham]? hath not one Qodereat«d as?" Luke 8 : 88 — "Adam, the ton of God ** ; 15:11-32— > 
the parable of the prodigal son, in which the father is father even before the prodigal 
returns ; John 3 : 16 — "God so lored the vorld, that he gate his only begotten Son" ; John 15 : 6— "If a man 
abide not in me, he is east forth as a branoh, and is withered ; and thej gather them, and oast them into the fire, and 
they are burned " ; — these words imply a natural union of all men with Christ, — otherwise 
they would teach that those who arc spiritually united to him can perish everlastingly. 
Acta 17 : 28 — " For we are also his olbpring "— words addressed by Paul to a heathen audience ; CoL 
1:16,17— "in him were all things created .... and in him aU things eonsist ; " Heb. 12:9— "the Father of 
spirits." Fatherhood, in this larger sense, Implies: 1. Origination; £. Impartatlon of 
life; 8. Sustentation; 4. Likeness in faculties and powers; 6. Government; 6. Care; 
7. Love. In all those respects Ood is the Father of all men, and his fatherly love is 
both prc8er\ing and atoning. God's natural fatherhood is mediated by Christ, through 
whom all things were made, and in whom all things, even humanity, consist. We are 
naturally children of God, as we were created in Christ ; we are spiritually sons of God, 
as we have been crrxited anew in Christ Jesus. G. W. Northrop : ** God never becomes 
Father to any men or class of men ; he only becomes a reconciled and eomiAacent 
Father to those who become ethically like him. Men are not sons in the full ideal 
sense until they comport themselves as sons of God." Chapman, Jesus Christ and the 
Present Age, S9— '' While God is the Father of all men, all men are not the children of 
God : in other words, God always realizes completely the idea of Father to every man ; 
but the majority of men realize only partially the idea of sonship.** 

Texts referring to the special Fatherhood of grace are : John 1 : 12; 13 — "as many as reoelTed 
him, to them gave he the right to beeome children of God, even to them that beliete on his name; i^ were bom, not of 
blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God"; Ront 8: 14 — "for as many as are led by the 
Spirit of God, these are sons of God " ; 15 — " ye reoeived the spirit of adoption, whereby we ery, Abba, Father " ; 2 Cor. 
6 : 17 — "Come ye out finom among them, and be ye separate^ saith the Lord, and tonoh no nnelean thing, and I will 
reeeiTe yon, and will be to yon a F^er, and ye shall be to me sons and danghters, saith the Lord Almighty" ; Iph. i : 5^ 
6 — "haying foreordained ns nnto adoption as sons tiiron^ Jesns Christ nnto himself" ; 3 : 14, 15 — "the Father, Ihtm 
whom erery fiunily [marg. ' fiuherhood '] in heaten and m earth is named " ( == every race among angels 
or men — so Meyer, Ilomans, 158, 150 ) ; GaL 3 : 26 — "for ye are all sons of God, throogh (aith, in Christ 
Jems"; 4:6 — "And because ye are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, erying, Abbe, Father"; 
i John 3 : 1, 2 — " Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon n% that we shonld be ealled ohildren of Godr 




MAN A CREATION OF GOD AND A CHILD OF GOD. 475 

and nioh ve an. . . . B«loT«d, now an m ehildnn of God.'* The sooship of the race Is only rudiment- 
ary. The actual realization of sonship is posBlble only througrh Christ. GaL 4 : 1-7 inti- 
mates a universal sooship, but a sonship in which the child "diffenth nothing from a bondaarrant 
tkongh h4 ia lord of all," and needs still to "roeoitd the adoption of sooai" Simon, Reconciliation, 81 — 
'* It is one thing to be a father ; another to discharge all the fatherly functions. Human 
fathers sometimes fail to behave like fathers for reasons lying solely in themselves; 
sometimes because of hindrances in the conduct or character of their children. No 
father can normally discharge his fatherly functions toward children who are unchild- 
like. So even the rebellious son is a son, but he does not act like a son.** Because all 
men are naturally sons of God, it does not follow that all men will be saved. Many 
who are naturally sons of God are not spiritually sons of God ; they are only "aerranta" 
who "abide not in the hooae foreTer'* (John 8 :35). God is their Father, but they have jret to 
" became " his children ( Mat 5 : 45 ). 

The controversy between those who maintain and those who deny that Gk>d is the 
Father of all men is a mere logomachy. God is physically and naturally the Father of 
all men ; he is morally and spiritually the Father only of those who have been renewed 
by his Spirit. All men are sons of God in a lower sense by virtue of their natural union 
with Christ ; only those are sons of God in the higher sense who have Joined themselves 
by faith to Christ in a spiritual union. We can therefore assent to much that is said by 
those who deny the universal divine fatherhood, as, for example, C. M. Mead, in Am. 
Jour. Theology, July, 1897 : 577-600, who maintains that sonship consists in spiritual 
kinship with God, and who quotes, in support of this view, John 8 : 41-44— "If God were jmr 
Father, ye would lore me. ... Te an of joor father, the deril " => the Fatherhood of God is not uni- 
versal ; Mai 5 : 44, 45 — " Lore your enemiea ... in order that je may beoome iMia of jonr Father who ia in 
heaven " ; John 1 : 12 — "aa many as reoeited him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them 
that belicTe on his name." Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 108— *' That God has created all 
men does not constitute them his sons in the evangelical sense of the word. The 
sonship on which the N. T. dwells so constantly is based solely on the experience of the 
new birth, while the doctrine of universal sonship rests either on a daring denial or a 
daring assumption — the denial of the universal fall of man through sin, or the assump- 
tion of the universal regeneration of man through the Spirit. In either case the 
teaching belongs to ' another goepel ' ( GaL 1 : 7 ), the recompense of whose preaching is not a 
beatitude, but an anathema ' ( GaL i : 8 )." 

But we can also agree with much that is urged by the opposite party, as for example, 
Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, 1 : 193 — " God does not become the Father, but is the heavenly 
Father, even of those who become his sons. . . • This Fatherhood of God, instead of 
the kingship which was the dominant idea of the Jews, Jesus made the primary doc- 
trine. The relation is ethical, not the Fatherhood of mere origination, and therefore 
only those who live aright are true sons of God. . . . 200— Mere kingship, or exalta- 
tion above the world, led to Pharisaic legal servitude and external ceremony and to 
Alexandrian philosophical speculation. The Fatherhood apprehended and announced 
by Jesus was essentially a relation of love and holiness.*' A. H. Bradford, Ago of 
Faith, 11&-120— ** There is something sacred in humanity. But systems of theology 
once began with the essential and natural worthlessness of man. ... If there is no 
Fatherhood, then selfishness is logical. But Fatherhood carries with it identity of 
nature between the parent and the child. Therefore every laborer is of the nature of 
God, and he who has the nature of God cannot be treated like the products of factory 
and field. . . . All the children of God are by nature partakers of the life of God. They 
arc called 'children of wrath ' ( KpL 2 : 3 ), or 'of perdition' ( John 17 : 12 ), only to indicate that their 
proper relations and duties have been violated. . . . Love for man is dependent on 
something worthy of love, and that is found in man's essential divinity." We object 
to this last statement, as attributing to man at the beginning what can come to him 
only through grace. Man was indeed created in Christ ( Col i : 16 ) and was a son of God 
by virtue of his union with Christ ( Lake 3 : 38 ; John 15 : 6 ). But since man has sinned and 
has renounced his sonship. It can be restored and realized, in a moral and spiritual 
sense, only through the atoning work of Christ and the regenerating work of the Holy 
Spirit ( EpL 2 : 10 — " created in Christ Jesus Ibr good works " ; 2 Pet i : 4 — "his predons and exceeding great prom- 
ises ; that throogh these je may beoome partakers of the dirine naton " ). 

Many who deny the universal Fatherhood of God refuse to carry their doctrine to its 
logical extreme. To be consistent they should forbid the unconverted to offer the 
Lord's Prayer or even to pray at all. A mother who did not believe God to be the 
Fatherof all actually said: "My children are not converted, and if I were to teach 
them the LQrd^s Prayer, I must teach them to say : * Our father who art in hell * ; for 



476 ANTHROPOLOGY, OR THE DOCTBIKB OF MAM. 

they are only children of the devIL** Papers on the question : Is God the Father 
of all Men? are to be found in the Prooeedings of the Baptist Congrress, 1886:106-136. 
Among these the essay of F. H. Uowley asserts God's universal Fatherhood upon the 
grounds : 1. Man is created in the image of God ; 2. God*s fatherly treatment of man, 
especially in the life of Christ among men ; 8. God's universal claim on man for his 
filial lore and trust ; 4. Only God's Fatherhood makes incarnation possible, for this 
implies oneness of nature between God and man. To these we may add : 5. The aton- 
ing death of Christ could be efficacious only upon the ground of a common nature in 
Christ and in humanity ; and 6. The regenerating work of the Holy Spirit is intelligi- 
ble only as the restoration of a filial relation which was native to man, but which his 
sin had put into abeyance. For denial that God is Father to any but the regenerate, 
see Candlish, Fatherhood of God ; Wright, Fatherhood of God. For advocacy of the 
universal Fatherhood, see Crawford, Fatherhood of God : lidgett. Fatherhood of God. 

n. Unity of the Human Baoe. 

( a ) The Scriptures teach that the whole human race is descended from 
a single pair. 

Gtn. f :27, 28— " And Qod ereat«d mtn in hii own image, in tha image of Ood ereatad 1m him ; male and fiamalo 
ereatad ha tham. And God blasaad them : and God nid onto them, Ba firoitfol, and multiply, and rsplaniah the earth, 
and snbdna it'* ; 2: 7— "ind Jahorah God formed man of the dost of the groond, and breathed into hit noatrils the 
hreathoflife; uidmanbaeamaaliTingBool"; 22 — ** and the rib, whioh Jehotah God had tak«i (ram the man, made 
he a vonian, and brought her onto the man " ; 3 : 20 — " And the man called hie wife's name Kre ; becanse she vas the 
mother o' all liring " = even Eve is traced bcu2k to Adam ; 9 : 19 — " These three were the soni of Noah ; 
and of these was the whole earth oTarspread." Mason, Faith of the Gospel. 110— ^'Logically, it 
seems easier to account for the divergence of what was at first one, than for the union 
of what was at first heterogeneous." 

( b ) This truth lies at the foundation of Paul's doctrine of the organic 
unity of mankind in the first transgression, and of the provision of salva- 
tion for the race in Christ. 

Rom. 5:12 — "Therefore, as through one man un entered into the world, and death through fin ; and so death passed 
unto all man, for that all sinned " ; 19 — " For as through the one man's disobadianoe the many were made sinners, eren 
80 through the obedienoe of the one shall the many be made righteoos " ; 1 Oor. 15 : 21, 22 — " For sinoe by man oame 
death, bj man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alire"; 
leb. 2 : 16 — " For Tarilj not of angels doth he take hold, but he taketh hold of the seed of Abraham." One of the 
most eminent ethnologists and anthropologists. Prof. D. G. Brinton, said not long 
before his death that all scientific research and teaching tended to the conviction that 
mankind has descended from one pair. 

(c) This descent of humanity from a single pair also constitutes the 
ground of man's obligation of natural brotherhood to every member of 
the race. 

Aets 17 :26— "he made of one etery nation of men to dwell on all the &oe of the earth " — here the Rev. 
Vers, omits the word " blood " ( "made of one blood "— Auth.Vers.). The word to be supplied is 
possibly '* father," but more probably *'body"; c/. Eeb. 2:11— "for both he thatsanetillathand 
they that are sanctified are all of one [ father or body ] : for which canae he is not ashamed to call them brethren, 
earing, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, In the midst of the congregation will I sing thy praise." 

Winchell, in his Preadamites, has recently revived the theory broached in 1665 by 
Peyrerius, that there were men before Adam : "Adam is descended from a black race 
— not the black races from Adam.'* Adam is simply ** the remotest ancestor to whom 
the Jews could trace their lineage. . . . The derivation of Adam from an older human 
stock is essentially the creation of Adam.'* Winchell does not deny the unity of the 
race, nor the retroactive effect of the atonement upon those who lived before Adam ; 
he simply denies that Adam was the first man. 207 — He " regards the Adamic stock as 
derived from an older and humbler hiunan type," originally as low in the scale as the 
present Australian savages. 

Although this theory furnishes a plausible explanation of certain Biblical facts, such 
marriage of Gain ( Gen. 4 : 17 ), Cain's fear that men would slay him ( Gen. 4 : 14 ), and 
on between" the srns of God" and "the daaghtenof men" (Oen.6:i, 2), it treats the 




UNITY OP THE HUMAN RACE. 477 

Mosaic narratlvo as le^ndary rather than historical. Sbem, Ham, and Japheth, it ia 
intimated, may have lived hundreds of years apart from one another ( 409 ). Upon this 
view, Eve could not be "the mother of all hTing'* (600.8:^0), nor could the transirresslon of 
Adam be the cause and begrinning of condemnation to the whole race ( Bom. 5 : 12, 19 ). As 
to Cain's fear of other families who migrht take vengeance upon him, we must remember 
that we do not know how many children were born to Adam between Cain and Abel* 
nor what the age of Cain and Abel was, nor whether Cain feared only those that were 
then living*. . Aa to Cain's marriage, we must remember that even if Cain married Into 
another family, his wife, upon any hypothesis of the umty of the race, must have been 
descended from some other original Cain that married his sister. 

See Keil and Delitzsch, Com. on Pentateuch, 1 : 116—** The marriage of brothers and 
Bisters was inevitable in the case of children of the first man, in case the human race 
was actually to descend from a single pair, and may therefore be Justified, in the fiioe 
of the Mosaic prohibition of such marriages, on the ground that the sons and daughters 
of Adam represented not merely the family but the genus, and that it was not till after 
the rise of several families that the boods of fraternal and conjugal love became distinct 
from one another and assumed fixed and mutually exclusive forms, the violation of 
which is sin.*' Prof. W. H. Green: "G«a. 20:12 shows that Sarah was Abraham's half- 
sister ; . . . . the regulations subsequently ordained in the Mosaic law were not then in 
force." 6. H. Darwin, son of Charles Darwin, has shown that marriage between cous- 
ins is harmless where there is difference of temperament between the parties. Modern 
palaeontology makes it probable that at the beginning of the race there was greater 
differentiation of brothers and sisters in the same family than obtains in later times. 
See Ebrard, Dogmatik, 1 : 275. For criticism of the doctrine that there were men before 
Adam, see Methodist Quar. Kev., April, 1881 : 205^1 ; Presb. Rev., 1881 : UOAU. 

The Soriptnre statements are corroborated by considerations drawn from 
history and science. Four arguments may be briefly mentioned : 

1. The argument from history. 

Bo far as the history of nations and tribes in both hemispheres can be 
traced, the evidence points to a common origin and ancestry in central Asia. 

The European nations are acknowledged to have come, in successive waves of migra- 
tion, from Asia. Modern ethnologists generally agree that the Indian races of America 
are derived from Mongoloid sources in Eastern Asia, either through Polynesia or by 
way of the Aleutian Islands. Bunsen, Philos. of Universal History, 2 : 112 — the Asiatio 
origin of all the North American Indians *' is as fuUy proved as the unity of family 
among themselves." Mason, Origins of Invention, 361 — •* Before the time of Colum- 
bus, the Polyncsiaus made canoe voyages from Tahiti to Hawaii, a distance of 2900 
miles.^* Keane, Man Past and Present, 1-15, 849-440, treats of the American Abori- 
gines under two primitive types : Longheads from Europe and Roundheads from Asia. 
The human race, he claims, originated in Indomalaysiaand spread thence by migration 
over the globe. The world was peopled from one center by Pleistocene man. The 
primary groups were evolved each in its special habitat, but all sprang from a Pleiocene 
precursor 100,000 years ago. W. T. Lopp, missionary to the Eskimos, at Port Clarence, 
Alaska, on the American side of Bering Strait, writes under date of August 81, 1898 : 
** No thaws during the winter, and ice blocked in the Strait. This has always been 
doubted by whalers. Eskimos have told them that they sometimes crossed the Strait 
on ice, but they have never believed them. Last February and March our Eskimos had 
a tobacco famine. Two parties (five men ) went with dogsleds to East Cape, on the 
Siberian coast, and traded some beaver, otter and marten skins for Russian tobacco, 
and returned safely. It is only during an occasional winter that they can do this. But 
every summer they make several trips in their big wolf -skin boats — forty feet long. 
These observations may throw some light upon the origin of the prehistoric races of 
America." 

Tyler, Primitive Culture, 1:48— "The semi-civilized nations of Java and Sumatra 
are found in possession of a civilization which at first glance shows itself to have been 
borrowed from Hindu and Moslem sources.*' See also Sir Henry Rawlinson, quoted in 
Burgees, Antiquity and Unity of the Race, 156, 157 ; Smyth, Unity of Human Races, 
228-236; Pickering, Races of Man, Introd., synopsis, and page 316; Guyot, Earth and 
Maa, 298-384 ; Quatrefages, Natural History of Man, and Unit6 de TEsp^ Humaine ; 



478 ANTHROPOLOOYy OR THE DOCTRIKE OP MAK. 

Godroa, Unit^ do I'Ssp^ce Humaine, S:412«7, Per contra, however, see Prof. A.H. 
Sayoe : ** The evidence is now all tending to show that the districts in the neighborhood 
of the Baltic were those from which the Aryan laneruajfes first radiated, and where the 
race or races who spoke them orifirinally dwelt. The Aryan invaders of Northwestern 
India could only have been a late and distant offshoot of the primitive stock, speedily 
absorbed into the earlier population of the country as they advanced southward ; and 
to speak of *■ our Indian brethren ' is as absurd and false as to claim relationship with 
the negroes of the United States because they now use an Aryan language." Scribner, 
Where Did Life Begin ? has lately adduced arguments to prove that life on the earth 
originated at the North Pole, and Prof. Asa Gray favors this view ; see his Darwiniana, 
206, and Scientific Papers, 2 : 152 ; so also Warren, Paradise Found; and Wieland, in 
Am. Journal of Science, Dea 1903 : 401-430. Dr. J. L. Wortman, in Yale Alumni Weekly, 
Jan. 14« 1903 : 129 — ** The appearance of all these primates in North America was very 
abrupt at the beginning of the second stage of the Eocene. And it is a striking coinci- 
dence that approximately the same forms appear in beds of exactly corresponding age 
in Europe. Nor does this synchronism stop with the apes. It applies to nearly all the 
other tjrpes of Eocene mammalia in the Northern Hemisphere, and to the accompany- 
ing flora as well. These facts can be explained only on the hypothesis that there was a 
common centre from which these plants and animals were distributed. Considering 
further thatr the present continental masses were essentially the same in the Eocene 
time as now, and that the North Polar region then enjoyed a subtropical climate, as is 
abundantly proved by fossil plants, we are forced to the conclusion that this common 
centre of dispersion lay approximately within the Arctic Circle. .... The origin of 
the human species Uid not take place on the Western Hemisphere.** 

2. The argninent from lang^nage. 

Comparative philology points to a common origin of aU the more impor- 
tant languages, and furnishes no evidence that the less important are not 
also so derived. 

On Sanskrit as a connecting link between the Indo-Germanic languages, see Max 
MUllor, Science of Language, 1 : 14i&-lft5, 838-342, who claims that all languages pass 
through the three stages : monosyllabic agglutinative, inflectional ; and that nothing 
necessitates the admission of different independent beginnings for either the material 
or the formal elements of the Turanian, Semitic, and Aryan branches of speech. The 
changes of language are often rapid. Latin becomes the Romance languages, and 
Saxon and Norman are united into English, in three centuries. The Chinese may have 
departed from their primitive abodes while their language was yet monosyllabic. 

G. J. liomanes. Life and Letters, 195— *' Children are the constructors of all languages^ 
as distinguished from langiuioe." Instance Helen Keller's sudden acquisition of 
language, uttering publicly a long piece only three weeks after she first began to 
imitate the motions of the lips. G. F. Wright. Man and the Glacial Period, 242-301 — 
** lUiccnt Investigations show that children, when from any cause isolated at an early 
age, will often produce at once a language de novo. Thus it would appear by no means 
improbable that various languages in America, and perhaps the earliest languages of 
the world, may have arisen in a short time where conditions were such that a family 
of small children could have maintained existence when for any cause deprived of 

parental and other fostering care Two or three thousand years of prehistoric 

time is i^erhaps all that would be required to produce the diversification of languages 
which appears at the dawn of history. . . . The prehistoric stage of Europe ended 
less than a thousand years before the Christian Era.** In a people whose speech has 
not been fixed by being committed to writing, baby-talk is a great source of linguistic 
corruption, and the changes are exceedingly rapid. Humboldt took down the vocabu- 
lary of a South American tribe, and after fifteen years of absence found their speech 
so changed as to seem a different language. 

ZOckler, in Jahrbuch f Ur deutsche Theologie, 8 : 68 aq., denies the progress from lower 
methods of speech to higher, and declares the most highly developed Inflectional 
languages to be the oldest and most widespread. Inferior languages are a degenera- 
tion from a higher state of culture. In the development of the Indo-Germanic lan- 
guages ( such as the French and the English ),we have instances of change from more full 
and luxuriant expression to that which is monosyllabic or agglutinative. The theory 
of Max MtUler is also opposed by Pott, Die V ersohledenhclten der mensohlloben Rassen* 




UNITY OF THE HUMAK RACE. 479 

202, 242. Pott calls attention to the fact that the Australian langruairee show unmistak- 
able similarity to the lanfiruacres of Eastern and Southern Asia, although the physical 
characteristics of these tribes are far different from the Asiatic. 

On the old Egryptian lan^rua^ as a connectingr link between the Indo-European and 
the Semitic tongues, see Bunsen, Egrypt's Place, 1 : preface, 10 ; also see Farrar, Origin 
of Lanfruage, 213. Like the old Egyptian, the Berber and the Touareg are Semitic in 
partfl of their vocabulary, while yet they are Aryan in grammar. So the Tibetan and 
Burmese stand between the Indo-European languages, on the one hand, and the mono- 
syllabic languages, as of China, on the other. A French philologist claims now to have 
interpreted the Yh-King, the oldest and most unintelligible monumental writing of the 
Chinese, by regarding it as a corruption of the old Assyrian or Accadian cuneiform 
characters, and as resembling the syllabaries, vocabularies, and bilingual tablets in the 
ruined libraries of Assyria and Babylon ; see Terrien de Lacouperie, The Oldest Book 
of the Chinese and its Authors, and The Languages of China before the Chinese, 11, 
note ; he holds to " the non-indigenousness of the Chinese civilization and its deriva- 
tion from the old Chaldteo- Babylonian focus of culture by the medium of Susiana." 
See also Sayoe, in Con temp. Rev., Jan. 1884 : 934-036; also. The Monist, Oct. 1006 : 662- 
596, on The Ideograms of the Chinese and the Central American Calendars. The evidence 
goes to show that the Chinese came into China from Susiana in the 23d century before 
Christ. Initial O wears down in time into a Y sound. Many words which begin with 
Y in Chinese are found in Accadian beginning with Q, as Chinese Te, * night,' is in 
Accadian Ge, * night.* The order of development seems to be : 1. picture writing ; 2. 
syllabic writing ; 3. alphabetic writing. 

In a similar manner, there is evidence that the Pharaonic Egyptians were immigrants 
from another land, namely. Babylonia. Hommel derives the hieroglyphs of the Egypt- 
ians from the pictures out of which the cuneiform characters developed, and he shows 
that the elements of the Egyptian language itself are contained in that mixed speech 
of Babylonia which originated in the fusion of Sumerians and Semites. The Osiris of 
Egypt is the Asari of the Sumerians. Burial in brick tombs in the first two Egyptian 
dynasties is a survival from Babylonia, as are also the seal-cylinders impressed on clay. 
On the relations between Aryan and Semitic languages, see Benouf, Hibbert Lectures, 
55-61; Murray, Origin and Growth of the Psalms,?; Bib. Sac, 1870:162; 1876:362-380; 
1870 : 674-706. See also Pezzi, Aryan Philology, 125 ; Sayce, Principles of Comp. Philology, 
132-174 ; Whitney, art. on Comp. Philology in Encyc. Britannica, also Life and Growth 
of Language, 269, and Study of Language, 307, 808 — ** Language affords certain indica- 
tions of doubtful value, which, taken along with certain other ethnological considera- 
tions, also of questionable pertinency, furnish ground for suspecting an ultimate 
relationship. . . . That more thorough comprehension of the history of Semitic speech 
will enable us to determine this ultimate relationship, may perhaps be looked for with 
hope, though it is not to be expected with confidence." See also Smyth, Unity of Human 
Races, 199-222 ; Smith's Bib. Diet., art. : Confusion of Tongues. 

We regard the facts as, on the whole, favoring an opposite conclusion from that in 
Hastings's Bible Dictionary, art.: Flood : *' The diversity of the human race and of 
liuiguage alike makes it improbable that men were derived from a single pair." E. G. 
Hobiuson : ^* The only trustworthy argument for the unity of the race is derived from 
comparative philology. If it should be establish^ that one of the three families of 
speech was more ancient than the others, and the source of the others, the argument 
would be unanswerable. Coloration of the skin seems to lie back of climatic influences. 
We believe in the unity of the race because in this there are the fewest difllculties. We 
would not know how else to interpret Paul in Romiiu 5." Max Mtlllcr has said that 
the fountain head of modem philology as of modern freedom and international law is 
the change wrought by Christianity, superseding the narrow national conception of 
patriotism by the recognition of all the nations and races as members of one great 
human family. 

3. The argument from psychology. 

The existence, among all families of mankind, of common mental and 
moral characteristics, as evinced in common maxims, tendencies and capaci- 
ties, in the prevalence of similar traditions, and in the universal applicability 
of oDe philosophy and religion, is most easily explained upon the theory 
of a common origin. 



















//!Mf^%fA^iM.i*fCK^Yi««k'4L4MX )fowlem.De&U»:n4— *If 
#'»«vr vxA <UMr ffarw 'A tter aaturml wyrMWii it is iBB|K«£bie aoc to < 

it^4i^^''*y*tUAMl '4 kAstyita^jm mhk:h are r«|M?«ir^ of 

gf'/*f^ t^diw*^^ th0s t^mimkja *d ^fkfmn diftmct specas in tke hi 

#A/t w^'i/yr^ V/ /4M;. TVr IftU^r f/§fiBkm impUcs* • c^vtrml point of or%ia.'* 

irv-rt; >« iM lMi|)r>«iitf»4Ut]r r/f dtMiObm l^nr manj laees tbere are. if w« oaee aDow 
0m* •i^^T'n m$*i w^0i*i Xhmn f0W% WbiJe Plckerinr vould aar cirren. Um'Ji «J9 earht, 
M//r^y/f* tw*{Uif^mo^ and ffarlM; lixt j-flre. Modern acienee mU tendt to tbe deriruioo 
//f «M/,t» tMMUf tf'tm ft iliHrl^ ff«rm. Other oommoo chancceritf ks of all races of men. 
Ift ftd/litU/ft V/ tl»/^«^ ti^MiUfwA in the text, are the dnntioii of prefnancj, the Dormal 
tm0*w^mi9ir*f *4 U0f ttf^r, the v^»d freqnencj of the pulse, tiie UabUitr to the aune 
/|i<Miii^«, M^hmth iitMUr HfHmnigt r/f PennsjlTania. m a infaim that hjbrid re«eCahle 
p9*06w^ WH Wf W0t^, m^nriUi than are ordinary plants ( Independent, Aof. 21, UM ). 

K. H, ryUff, art.: AntbfY4>r»|riir7« *« Kncyc Britannica: ** On tike whole it maj be 
mm-f^Hl tiMt tb«» d/x;trioe ^/f the unity of mankind now stands on a firmer basis than in 
|/f#f y I//IIM n$[»mJ* iMrwfn, Animals and PlanU under DomesUcation. 1 : 3i— ** From the 
fimt^tilAmw^ In s«?ir«rral otntntrUm of tlie half-domesticated dogs to the wild species still 
llfUtU tii4rr«;« tr'ftn th»f tm^Wtf with which they can be crossed together, ftom ereo half 
tMttt*'A anlmais \itfitm •f* much valued by savages, and from the other circumstances 
pr*r^U/ii»lr rtttmrku^ tm which favor domestication, it is highly probable that the 
d//ffM«tlii/l/iir« of tiKi w'/rkl have descended from two good species of wolf (viz^ C<in£f 
|u//fM afid runiM UttrtinM ), and from two or three other doubtful species of wolves 
rrMfr«4'lr«tlMi Kuroiifnth Indian and North American forms); from at least one or two 
Mf/iith A m4irUmtt tmttitm spades ; from serersl races or species of the Jackal ; and perhaps 




UNITY OP THE HUMAN RACE. 481 

from one or inoro extinct spocice." Dr. E. M. Moore tried unsucoeflsfuUy to produce 
offspriiijf by pairing a Newfouudland dog and a woif-iike dog from Canada. He only 
proved anew the repii£rnance of even slicrhUy separated species toward one another. 

B. Unity of species is presumptive evidence of unity of origin. One- 
ness of origin fumiahes the simplest explanation of specific uniformity, if 
indeed the very conception of species does not imply the repetition and 
reproduction of a primordial type-idea impressed at its creation ux>on an 
individual empowered to transmit this type-idea to its successonu 

Dana, quoted In Burgess. Antlq. and Unity of Race, 18S, 186— "In the ascending 
scale of animals, the number of species in any genus diminishes as we rise, and should 
by analogy be smallest at the head of the series. Among mammaJs, the higher genera 
have few species, and the highest group next to man, the orang-outang, has only eight, 
and these constitute but two genera. Analogy requires that man should have preemi- 
nence and should constitute only one.*' .194 — *^ A species corresponds to a specific 
amount or condition of concentrated force defined in the act or law of creation. . . • • 
The species in any particular case began its existence when the first germ-cell or indi- 
vidual was created. When individuals multiply from generation to generation, it is but 
a repetition of the primordial type-idea. .... The specific is based on a numerical 
unity, the species being nothing else than an enlargement of the individual.*' For 
full statement of Dana's view, see Bib. Sac, Oct. 1857 : 8<fi^-806. On the idea of speoieBf 
see also Shedd, Dogm. TheoL, 2 : 63-74. 

(a) To this view is opposed the theory, propounded by Agassiz, of 
different centres of creation, and of different types of humanity correspond- 
ing to the varying fauna and flora of each. But this theory makes the 
plural origin of man an exception in creation. Science points rather to 
a single origin of each species, whether vegetable or animal. If man be, 
as this theory grants, a single species, he should be, by the same rule, 
restricted to one continent in his origin. This theory, moreover, applies an 
unproved hypothesis with regard to the distribution of organized beings in 
general to the very being whose whole nature and history show conclusively 
that he is an exception to such a general rule, if one exists. Since man can 
adapt himself to all climes and conditions, the theory of separate centres of 
creation is, in his case, gratuitous and unnecessary. 

Agassiz's view was first published in an essay on the Provinces of the Animal World, 
in Nott and Gllddon's Types of Mankind, a book gotten up in the interest of slavery. 
AgasHiz held to eight distinct centres of creation, and to eight corresponding types of 
humanity — the Arctic, the Mongolian, the European, the American, the Negro, the 
Hottentot, the Malay, the Australian. Agassiz regarded Adam as the ancestor only of 
the white race, yet like Poyrerius and Winchell be held that man in all his various races 
constitutes but one species. 

The whole tendency of recent science, however, has been adverse to the doctrine of 
separate centres of creation, even in the case of animal and vegetable life. In temperate 
North America there are two hundred and seven species of quadrupeds, of which only 
eight, and these polar animals, are found in the north of Europe or Asia. If North 
America be an instance of a separate centre of creation for its peculiar species, why 
should God create the same species of man in eight different localities ? This would 
make man an exception in crei|tion. There is, moreover, no need of creating man in 
many separate localities ; for, unlike the polar bears and the Norwegian firs, which 
cannot live at the equator, man can adapt himself to the most varied climates and con- 
ditions. For replies to Agassiz, see Bib. Sac, 19 : 607-632 ; Princeton Bev., 1802 : 43&-464. 

(&) It is objected, moreover, that the diversities of size, color, and 
physical conformation, among the various families of mankind, are incon- 
sistent with the theory of a common origin. But we reply that these 
diversities are of a superficial character, and can be accounted for by cor- 
81 



iS2 AKTHROPOLOOT, OB THE DOCTBIKE OF MAK. 

responding diversities of condition and environment. Changes which have 
been observed and recorded within historic times show that the differences 
allnded to may be the result of slowly aocnmnlated divergences from one 
and the same original and ancestral type. The difficulty in the case, more- 
over, is greatly relieved when we remember ( 1 ) that the period during 
which these divergences have arisen is by no means limited to six thousand 
years ( see note on the antiquity of the race, pages 224-226 ) ; and ( 2 ) that, 
since species in general exhibit their greatest power of divergence into 
varieties immediately after their first introduction, all the varieties of the 
human species may have presented themselves in man's earliest history. 

Instances of physiologloal change as the result of new conditions : The Irish driven 
by the KngUsh two centuries ago from Armagh and the south of Dovm« have become 
prognathous like the Australians. The inhabitants of New England have descended 
from the English, yet they have already a physical type of their own. The Indians of 
North America, or at least certain tribes of them, hare permanently altered the shape 
of the skull by bandaging the head in infancy. The Sikhs of I ndia, since the establish- 
ment of Bdba N&nak*8 religion ( 1500 A. D. ) and their consequent advance in dvili- 
zation, have changed to a longer head and more r^rular features, so that they are now 
disdnguiflhed greatly from their neighbors, the Afghans, Tibetans, Hindus. The Ostiak 
savages have become the Magyar nobility of Hungary. The Turks in Europe are, 
in cranial shape, greatly in advance of the Turks in Asia from whom they descended. 
The Jews are confessedly of one ancestry ; yet we have among them the light-haired 
Jews of Poland, the dark Jews of Spain, and the Ethiopian Jews of the Nile Valley. 
The Portuguese who settled in the East Indies in the 16th century are now as dark in 
complexion as the Hindus themselves. Africans become lighter in complexion as they 
go up from the alluvial river-banks to higher land, or from the coast ; and on the con- 
trary the coast tribes which drive out the negroes of the interior and take their territory 
end by becoming negroes themselves. See, for many of the above facts, Burgees, 
Antiquity and Unity of the Race, 195-203. 

The law of originally greater plasticity, mentioned in the text, was first hinted by 
Hall, the palaeontologist of New York. It is accepted and defined by Dawson, Story of 
the Earth and Man, 360— *' A new law is coming into view : that species when first intro- 
duced have an innate power of expansion, which enables them rapidly to extend them- 
selves to the limit of their geographical range, and also to reach the limit of their 
divergence into races. This limit once reached, these races run on in parallel lines 
until they one by one run out and disappear. According to this law the most aberrant 
races of men might be developed in a few centuries, after which divergence would 
cease, and the several lines of variation would remain permanent, at least so long as 
the conditions under which they originated remained." See the similar view of Von 
Baer in Schmld, Theories of Darwin, 55, note. Joseph Cook : Variability is a lessening 
quantity ; the tendency to change is greatest at the first, but, like the rate of motion of 
a stone thrown upward, it lessens every moment after. Ruskin, Seven Lamps, 125— 
''The life of a nation is usually, like the flow of a lava-stream, first bright and fierce, 
then languid and covered, at last advancing only by the tumbling over and over of its 
frozen blocks." Renouf, Hibbert Lectures, 64— '*The further back we go into 
antiquity, the more closely does the Egyptian type approach the European.*' Rawlin- 
son says tiiat negroes are not represented in the Egyptian monuments before 1500 B. C 
The ii^uenoe of climate is very great, especially in the savage state. 

In May, 1801, there died in San Francisco the son of an interpreter at the Merchants' 
Exchange. He was 21 years of age. Three years before his death his clear skin was his 
chief claim to manly beauty. He was attacked by " Addison^s disease, " a gradual 
darkening of the color of the surface of the body. At the time of his death his skin 
was as dark as that of a full-blooded negro. His name was George L. Sturtcvant. 
Batzel, History of Mankind, 1 :9, 10— As th ;re is only one species of man, *' the reunion 
into one real whole of the parts which have diverged after the fasliion of sports ** is said 
to be " the unconscious ultimate aim of all the movements'* which have taken place 
since man began his wanderings. ** With Humboldt we can only hold fast to the exter- 
nal unity of the race." Boo Sir Wm. Hunter, The Indian Empire, 223, 410; Encyc. Dritan- 
nica, llS:a08; :»:110; ZOcklcr. Urgeschichte, 109-13:2, and in Jahrbuoh ftlr deutsohe 




ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF HUMAN NATURE. 483 

Theolo^e, 8 : 51-71 ; Prichard, Researches, 6 : 547-^52, and Nat. Hist, of Man, 2 : 644r^56 ; 
Duke of Aruyll, Primeval Man, 96-108; Smith, Unity of Human Races, 255-288; Morris, 
Conflict of Science and Reli8lon« 82&-385 ; Rawlinson, in Journ. Christ. Philosophy, 
April, 1883 : 350. 

m. EssENTiAii Elements of Human Katube. 
L TTie DicJiotomoua Theory, 

Man has a two-fold nature, — on the one hand material, on the other hand 
unmateriaL He consists of body, and of spirit, or souL That there are 
two, and only two, elements in man's being, is a fact to which consciousness 
testifies. This testimony is confirmed by Scripture, in which the prevailing 
representation of man's constitution is that of dichotomy. 

Dichotomous, from St'xa, * in two,* and W^kw, ' to out,* — composed of two parts. Man 
is as conscious that his immaterial part is a unity, as that his body is a unity. He Icnows 
two, and only two, parts of his bein? — body and souL So man is the true Janus ( Mar- 
tensen ), Mr. Facinsr-both-ways ( Bunyan ). That the Scriptures favor dichotomy will 
appear by considerincr : 

( a ) The record of man's creation ( G^n. 2:7), in which, as a result of 
the inbreathing of the divine Spirit^ the body becomes possessed and 
vitalized by a single principle — the living souL 

Gen. 2: 7—" indJehoTsliGodibnDedmui of the dost of UiegTiNmd, and breathed into Us nostrils the bmth of life; and 
man beeame a living lonl" —here it is not said that man was first a living soul, and that then 
God breathed into him a spirit ; but that God inbreathed spirit, and man became a 
living soul — God's life took possession of clay, and as a result, man had a soul. Of, Job 
27:3 — "Formjlifeisyef vhole in me, And the spirit of God is in mj nostrils"; 82: 8 — "there is a spirit in man, And 
the breath of the Almighty gireth themnndentanding" ; 33 : 4— "The Spirit of God hath made me^ And the breath of the 
Almightj girethme lift." 

( 6 ) Passages in which the human soul, or spirit, is distinguished, both 
from the divine Spirit from whom it proceeded, and from the body which 
it inhabits. 

HnnLi6:22—"0 God, the God of the spirits of all flesh"; Zeeh.i2:i— "JehoTah, vho . . . . finmeth the spirit of 
manvithinhim"; i Cor. 2: il — " the spirit of the man vhieh is in him .... the Spirit of God " ; Eeb.i2: 9~"tht 
Father of spirits." The passages Just mentioned distinguish the spirit of man from the 
Spirit of God. The following distinguish the soul, or spirit, of man from the body 
which it inhabits : Gen.35:18 — "iteametopas8,uher sool wasdeparting (forshedied)";! L17:2i — "0 
JehoTah mj God, I praj thee, let this ohild's sonl oome into him again" ; led. 12 : 7 — "the dost retometh to tiie earth 
as it was, and the spirit retometh nnto God vho gave it " ; James 2 : 26 — "the bodj apart from the spirit is dead.** 
The first class of passages refutes pantheism ; the second refutes materialism. 

( c ) The interchangeable use of the terms ' soul ' and 'spirit' 

Gen. 4i :8 — "his spirit vas tronblod" ; cf. Ps. 42:6 — "mj soul is east down within me." John 12: 27— "Xov 
is m J sonl troubled " ;c/. 13 :2i — " he wu troubled in the spirit." Hat 20 : 28 — " to give his life ( ^X*!*" ) ^ na- 
som for manj " ;c/. 27: 50 — "jieldednp his spirit (irK«uMa)." Eeb. 12: 23 — "spirits of jnst men made perfiBot";c/. 
Rat. 6: 9 — "I saw nndemeath the altar the sonls of them that had been slain for the word of God." In these 
passages " spirit" and "sool" seem to be used interchangeably. 

{d) The mention of body and soul ( or spirit ) as together constituting 
the whole man. 

IIat.iO:28 — "able to destroy both soul and bodj in hell"; 1 Cor. 5:3 — "absent in body bat present Id spirit"; 
8 John 2 — " I praj that thon ma jest propter and be in health, even u thj soul prospereth." These texts imply 
that body and soul ( or spirit) together constitute the whole man. 

For advocacy of the dichotomous theory, see Goodwin, in Journ. Society Bib. Exe- 
gesis, 1881: 73-86; Godet, Bib. Studies of the O. T., 32; Oehler. Theology of the O. T., 
1:219; Hahn, Bib. Theol. N. T., 390 8q.; Schmid, Bib. Theology N. T., 503; Weiss, Bib. 
Theology N. T^ 214 ; Luthardt, Oompendium der Dogmatlk, 112, U3 ; Hofmaon, Schrif t- 



484 AKTHROPOL06T, OK THE DOCTEIXB OF MAK. 

beweifl,l:2M-29B; Kmlmis, Doflnnatik, 1:549; 3:S49; Harien, Gom. oa Eph., 4:23. and 
Christian Ethics, 2S; Thomasius, ChnstI Person und Werk. 1 : 164-lf» ; Hodge, in Prince- 
ton Review, 18G5:11«, and Systematic TheoL^ 2:47-51; Ebrard. Posmatlk, 1:261-263; 
Wm. H. Hodge, in Presb. and Bef. Ber- ApL 1807. 

2. Tlie TrichotomouB Theory. 

Side by side with this oommon representation of human nature as oon- 
sifitiug of two parts, are found passages which at first sight appear to favor 
trichotomy. It mnst be acknowledged that fnrt/xa (spirit) and i'vxv (soal), 
although often nsed interchangeably, and always designating the same 
indivisible sabstanoe, are sometimes employed as contrasted terms. 

In this more accorate nse, ^'tA denotes man's inmiaterial part in its infe- 
rior ix>wer8 and activities ; — as V^^r9, man is a conscious individual, and, in 
common with the brute creation, has an animal hfe, together with appetite, 
imagination, memory, nndeistanding. Hvf r/im, on the other hand, denotes 
man's immaterial part in its higher capacities and faculties ; — as vvevfia^ 
man is a being related to God, and ]X)8sessing powers of reason, conscience, 
and free will, which difference him from the brute creation and oonstitate 
him responsible and immortaL 



In the following texts, spirit and soul are distinguished from each other : i Aik 5: S— 

" And tlM God of pesw hiaielf auutify joa vboQj ; aadnajjonrfpiritaad aool and bodj be pnMnnd «ln% vitlMWt 
UuMftttliteamiii|^ofoixrLordJ«taiCkriit"; Iok4:i2— "For tkevordi^GodisliTiiig, uidaetiTO.uidAarpflrthui 
•aj tvo-«d^ iwoid, and pierdng ern to tke diiidini^ of ao<d and ipirit, (tf botk jo Jite 

thMghtiand intonte of tko hflart" Compare 1 Cor. 2 : U — "Kov tho natenl [ Or. 'pajcMcal * ] nan recdTotk not 
the tUngi of tka Spirit of God"; 15:44 — ''Itisiovnanatnnl[Gr. 'p8jehical']bodj; it is raised a qdritaal bodj. 
Iftbere is a ttatnraI[Gr.' psychical ']bodj, there is also a spirimal bodj"; Iph. 4: 23 — "that ye be nnevedinthe 
spirit ofjonr Bind"; Jade 19— "stosoaliGr. 'ps7ohieal'],hanngnotthe^irit." 

For th? proper interpretation of these texts, see note on the next page. Among 
those who cite them as proofs of the trichotomous theory ( trichotomous. from Tptx«, 
* in three parts,* and Wm>^, * to cut,* => composed of three parts, i.e., spirit, soul, and 
body ) may be mentioned Olshauscn. Opusoula, 134, and Com. on 1 Thesis 5 : 23; Becis, 
Bibllscho Seclenlehre, 81 ; Dclitzsch, Biblical Psychology, 117, 118 ; Gliscbcl, in Henog. 
Bealencyclopfidie, art. : Seelc ; also, art. by Auberlen : Geist des Mcnschen ; Cremer, N. 
T. Lexicon, on ftvtviia and ^x^ ; Usteri, Paulin. Lchrbegriff, 884 »q. ; Neander, Planting 
and Training, 804 ; Van Oostcrzee, Christian Dogmatic^ 865. 866 ; Boardman, in Bap. 
Quarterly, 1 : 177, 825, 428 ; Heard, Tripartite Nature of Man, 63-114; ElUcott, Destiny 
of the CYeaturo, 106-125. 

The element of truth in trichotomy is simply this, that man has a triplio- 
ity of endowment, in virtue of which the single soul has relations to matter, 
to self, and to God. The trichotomous theory, however, as it is ordinarily 
defined, endangers the unity and immateriality of our higher nature, by 
holding that man consists of three substances, or three component parts — 
body, soul, and spirit — and thi?t soul and spirit are as distinct from each 
other as are soul and body. 

The advocates of this view differ among themselves as to the nature of the ^xn and 
its relation to the other elements of our being ; some ( as Delitzsch ) holding that the 
\ltvxn iH an eillux of the itkcCmo, distinct in substance, but not in essence, even as the 
divine Word is distinct from Ocxl, while yet he is God ; others ( as Gtischel) regarding 
(the i^vxii, not as a distinct substance, but as a resultant of the union of the vytOfxa and 
the aCifia, 8till others ( as Cromer ) hold the i^vx^ to be the subject of the personal life 
whose principle is the nvtvixa. Heard, Tripartite Nature of Man, 103— "God is the 

Creator ex tradticc of the animal and intellectual part of every man Not so with 

the spirit. ... It QrooeedB from God, not by creation, but by emanation.** 



ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF HUMAN NATURE. 485 

We regard the trichotomous theory as untenable, not only for the reasons 
abready urged in proof of the diohotomous theory, but from the following 
additional considerations : 

(a) Uvevfia, as well as ifvxi, is used of the brute creation. 

lodL 3 : 21 — "Who kaovekh the iprit of nan, ▼h0th«r it goekh [ margr. 'thatgootk* 1 npwird, and the ipirit of the 
beast, vhether it goeth [ marsr. 'that goekh' ] dovnirard to the earth?" R«t. 16 : 3 — "ind the aeoond poured oat his 
bovl into the aea ; aadit beeameUood, u of a dead man; and everj living aonl died, eren the thingi that vere lathe 
Ma"ii=theflsh« 

( & ) "^vx^ is ascribed to Jehovah. 

Anoa 6 : 8 — "Thelord JehoTah hath iwoni by hinaalf** (lit 'by hisaool.* Ill «avr<Si^) ;I8. 42 : 1 — "mjehewB. 
iavhommyaoiildelighteth"; Jer. 9: 9 — "ShalllnotTiiitthem fertheae things ?iaithJehoTah; shall not my soul be 
aTsnged?" HeK 10 : 39 — "my righteou one shall Uts by ftdth: And if he shrink bask, my soul hath no pleason in 
him." 

( c ) The disembodied dead are called ifvx^^- 

KsT.6:9— "Isavnndenieaththealtarthe tonlt of than that had been slain fbr th# void of God"; e/.20:4-^ 
• Bonis of them that had been beheaded." 

{d) The highest exercises of religion are attributed to the ^'xv- 

]larkl2:30 — *'aMa Shalt love the lord thy God.... irithall thy soul "; Lake 1 : 46 — *• My soul doth magnify 
the Lord"; Eeb.6:18, 19 — "the hope set before ns: vlilflh Ye hare u an aaehor of the seal"; Jamesl:21- "the 
implanted vord, vhidiia able to save yoor seals." 

{e) To lose this fvx^/ is to lose alL 

Hark 8: 36, 87— "For vhat doth it profit a man, to gain theirhdle varU, ud forfeit his lift [ or 'soal,' i^vxi}]? 
for vhat shoalda man give in eiefaange for his life [ or 'sool,' ^x*^ 3 ^ " 

(/) The passages chiefly relied upon aa supporting trichotomy may 
be better explained upon the view already indicated, that soul and spirit 
are not two distinct substances or parts, but that they designate the 
immaterial principle from different points of view. 

IThess. 5 : 23— "may yoor spirit and sool and body be prsBerred entire** »- not a soientiflc enumeratioii 
of the oonstltueut parts of human nature, but a comprehensive sketch of that nature in 
its chief relations ; compare Hark 12 : 30 — "thoa shah love Um Lord thy God irith all thy heart, and with 
all thy sool, and with all thy mod, and with all thy strength " — where none would think of finding 
proof of a fourfold division of human nature. On 1 Thess. 5 : 23* see Biffgroobach ( in 
Lange*s Com. ), and Commentary of Prof. W. A. Stevens. Heb. 4 : 12 —"piercing eren to the 
dividing of sool and spirit^ ol both joints and marrow "=> not the dividing of soul fro)n spirit, or of 
Joints /rom marrow, but rather the piercing of the soul and of the spirit, even to their 
very Joints and marrow ; <. e., to the very depths of the spiritual nature. On Heb. 4 : 12; see 
Ebrard ( in Olshausen^s Com. ), and LUnemann ( in Meyer's Com. ) ; also Tholuck, Com. 
in locon Jnde 19 — " sensual, hanr^ not the Spirit *' ( ^x^'coi, vytvfjia /xi) ix^vrt^ ) — even though n-i'cC/Aa 
» the human spirit, need not mean that there is no spirit existing, but only that the 
spirit is torpid and inoperative — as we say of a weak man : * he has no mind,* or of an 
unprincipled man : ^ he has no conscience * ; so Alford; see Nitzsch, Christian Doctrine, 
202. But irccvfAa here probably = the divine iri^eOMo. Meyer takes this view, and the 
Bevised Ycrslon capitalizes the word "Spirit." See Goodwin, Soc. Dib. Exegesis, 1881 : 85 
^ ** The distinction between ^x^ ai^cl vytvixa is a functional^ and not a suhRtanHaU dis- 
tinction.''* Moulo, Outlines of Christian Doctrine, 161, IttS—^* Soul => spirit organized, 
inseparably linked with the body ; spirit =» man*s inner being considered as God^s gift. 
Soul — man^s inner being viewed as his own ; spirit -° man*s inner being viewed as from 
God. They are not separate elements." See Llghtfoot, Essay on St. Paul and Seneca, 
appended to his Com. on Phillppians, on the Influence of the ethical language of Stoi- 
cism on the N. T. writers. Martlneau, Seat of Authority, 89— " The difference between 
man and his companion creatures on this earth is not that his instinctive life Is less 
than theirs, for in truth it goes far beyond them; but that in him it acts in the pres- 
ence and under the eye of other i)Ower8 which transform it, and by giving to it vision 
as well as light take its blindness away. He is let into his own seoiets.** 



4M ASTHBOFOUMT, OE THB OOCTRUTB OF MAJT. 

We ooDchide tiiai the inunalerial part of man, liewed as an indiTidaal 
and crMacioaalife, capehle of poweBBing and anim a tin g a phyacal ogrga nJHm, 
ia called ^^x^ i viewed as a rational and moral agents snaoeptilde of divine 
influence and indweDing, this same immaterial part is called wtvfta. The 
xvr.vua, then, is man's natnre looking Godward, and capable of reoeiYing 
and manifesting the Uvtiua aytov ; the i^'xv is man's natoie looking eartii- 
ward, and tooching the world of sense. The mrf/ia Is man's higher part^ 
as related to spiritoal realities or as ci^)able of soch relation ; the ^xi is 
man's higher part, as related to the body, or as amiable of sach relation. 
Man's being is therefore not trichotomoos bat dichotomoos, and his 
immaterial part^ while poeseesing doality of powers, has unity of sabstanoo. 

ICfto*! natore H not a three-storied hoase, but a two-atotfed houee, with windows in 
the upper story looking in two directions— toward earth and toward hesTcn. The 
lower story is the physical part of us— the body. But man*s ^apper story** has two 
aspects; there is an outlook toward things below, and a skylifffat throu^ which to see 
thestazB. ** Soul,** says Horey, ** is spirit as modified by union with the body.** Isman 
then the same in kind with the brute, but different in decree? No, man is different in 
kind, though possessed of certain powers which the brute has. The frog is not a mag- 
niflod sensitiTe-plant, though his nenres automaticaliy respond to irritation. The 
animal is different in kind from the Tegetable, though lie has some of the same powers 
wliich the Tegetable has. Ood^ powers include man*s ; but man is not of the same 
substance with God, nor could man be enlarged or dereloped into God. So man*s 
pf^wers include those of the brute, but the brute is not of the same substance with man, 
nor could he be enlarged or developed into man. 

Porter, Human Intellect, 30— '' The spirit of man, in addition to its higher endow- 
ments, may also possess the lower powers which vitaliae dead matter into a human 
body." It does not follow that the soul of the animal or plant is capable of man*s 
higher functions or developments, or that the subjection of man*s spirit to body, in the 
present life, disproves his immortality. Porter continues : *^ That the soul begins to 
exist as a vital force, does not require that it should always exist as such a force or in 
oomMiction with a material body. Should it require another such body, it may have 
the iK>wcT to create it for itself, as it has formed the one it first inhabited ; or it may 
have already formed it» and may hold it ready for occupation and use as soon as it 
•louglis off the one which connects it with the earth.** 

Harris, Philos. Basis of Theism, 647—** Brutes may haTe organic Ufe and sensltlyity, 
and yet remain submerged in nature. It is not life and sensitivity that lift man above 
nature, but it is the distinctive characteristic of personality.** Parkhurst, The Pattern 
in the Mount, 17-30, on Prvr. 20 :Z7 — *'Tk« quit of mi is tk« hoy of Jchvnk** — not necessarily 
lighted, but capable of being lighted, and intended to be lighted, by the touch of the 
divine flame. C/. lht6:22,23--*'lWlu9oftli»bodj . . . . UtkmaritkoligkttiatiiiitkMboiaxkiMi, 
Ww grat is tkt darkMH.** 

Schloiermacher, Christliche Glaube, IK : 487— ** We think of the spirit as soul, only 
when in the brxly, so that we cannot speak of an immortality of the soul, in the proper 
sense, without bodily life.'* The doctrine of the spiritual body is therefore the comple- 
ment to the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. A. A. Hodge, Pop. Lectures, 221 
— ** By soul we mean only one thing, i. e., an incarnate spirit, a spirit with a body. 
Hius wo nevcn* siieak of the souls of angels. They are pure spirits, having no bodies.** 
Lisle, Evolution of Spiritual Man, 72— ** The animal is the foundation of the spiritual; 
It is what the cellar is to the house ; it is the base of supplies.** Ladd, PhUosophy of 
Mind, 871-378— ** Trichotomy is absolutely untenable on grounds of psychological 
scienoc. Man*s reason, or the spirit that Is in man, is not to be regarded as a sort of 
Mansard roof, built on to one building in a block, all the dwellings in which are other- 
wise substantially alike. ... On the contrary, in every set of characteristics, from 
those called lowest to those pronounced highest, the soul of man differences itself from 
the soul of any species of animalft. • . • The highest has also the lowest. All must be 
assigned to one subject** 

TIiiH view of the soul and spirit as different aspects of the same spiritual 
principle f omishea a refutation of six important errors : 




ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF HUMAN NATURE. 487 

(a) That of the Gkiostios, who held that the irvev/ia is part of the divine 
essence, and therefore incapable of sin. 

(6) That of the Apollinarians, who tanght that Christ's humanity 
embraced only aofia and in>x^, while his divine nature furnished the wn/uu 

( c ) That of the Semi-Pelagians, who excepted the human nvdb/ia from 
the dominion of original sin. 

(d) That of Plaoeusy who held that only the frvev/ia was directly created 
by €k>d (see our section on Theories of Imputation). 

(e) That of Julius Miiller, who held that the in)xi comes to us from 
Adam, but that our irvevfM was corrupted in a previous state of being 
(see page 490). 

(/) That of the Annihilationists, who hold that man at his creation had 
a divine element breathed into him, which he lost by sin, and which he 
recovers only in regeneration ; so that only when he has this mfd/fia Restored 
by virtue of his union with Christ does man become immortal, death being 
to the sinner a complete extinction of being. 

Tadtus might almost be understood to be a triohotomlst when he writes : '* Si ut 
sapientibus placuit, non eztlngruuntur cum corpore moi/naa animse.** Trichotomy 
allies itself readily with materialism. Many triohotomists hold that man can exist 
without a wcO/Ao, but that the aw^a and the ^x^ hy themselves are mere matter, and 
are incapable of eternal existence. Trichotomy, however, when it speaks of the ww/ia 
as the divine principle in man, seems to savor of emanation or of panthoiBm. A modem 
English poet describes the glad and winsome child as ** A silver stream. Breaking with 
laughter from the lake divine. Whence all things flow/* Another poet. Robert Brown- 
ing, in his Death in the Desert, 107, describes body, soul, and spirit, as *^ What does, 
what knows, what is — three souls, one man.** 

The Eastern church generally held to trichotomy, and is best represented by John of 
Damascus ( 11 :12) who speaks of the soul as the sensuous life-principle which takes up 
the spirit— the spirit being an cfHux from God. The Western church, on the other 
hand, generally held to dichotomy, and is best represented by Anselm : ** Constat homo 
ex duabus naturis, ox natura animse et ex natura camis.** 

Luther has been quoted upon both sides of the controversy : by Delitssch, Bib. Psych.« 
460-488, as trichotomous, and as making the Mosaic tabernacle with its three divisions 
an image of the tripartite man. ** The first division,'* he says, *' was called the holy of 
holies, since God dwelt there, and there was no light therein. The next was denomi- 
nated the holy place, for within it stood a candlestick with seven branches and lamps. 
The third was called the atrium or court ; this was under the broad heaven, and was 
open to the light of the sun. A regenerate man is depicted in this figure. His spirit is 
the holy of holies, God*s dwelling-place, in the darkness of faith, without a light, for he 
believes what he neither sees, nor feels, nor comprehends. The peyche at that man is 
the holy place, whose seven lights represent the various powers of understanding, the 
perception and knowledge of material and visible things. His body is the atrium or 
court, which is open to everybody, so that all can see how he acts and lives.** 

Thomasius, however, in his Christ! Person und Work, 1 : 164-168, quotes from Luther 
the following statement, which is dearly dichotomous: ^The first part, the spirit, is 
the highest, deepest, noblest part of man. By it he is fitted to comprehend eternal 
things, and it is, in short, the house in which dwell faith and the word of God. The 
other, the soul, is this some spirit, according to nature, but yet in another sort of activ- 
ity, namely, in this, that it animates the body and works through it ; and it is its method 
not to grasp things incomprehensible, but only what reason can search out, know, and 
measure.** Thomasius himself says : '* Trichotomy, I hold with Meyer, is not Script- 
urally sustained.'* Neander, sometimes spoken of as a trichotomist, sajrs that spirit is 
soul in its elevated aad normal relation to God and divine things ; ^vx^ is that same 
soul in its relation to the sensuous and perhaps sinful things of this world. Godet, Bib. 
Studies of O. T.,32 — "Spirit— the breath of God, considered as independent of the 
body; soul — that same breath, in so far as it gives life to the body.** 



488 AKTHBOPOLOGY, OR THE DOCTRIKE OF MAN. 

The doctrine we haTe advocated, moreorer, in contrast with the heathen view, puts 
honor upon man's body, as proceeding from the hand of Ood and as therefore origin- 
ally pure (Gml 1:31 — ''And God ttveraiTthing thai he htdiittdA, and, behold, it vu very good'*) ^ aslntended 
to be tho dwellincr place of the divine Spirit (lOor. 6: 19— "know je not that jourbodj is a temple of 
the Holy Spirit vhieh ii in yoo, vhieh je have from God ? '* ) ; and as containing the germ of the heavenly 
body (lOor. 15: 44 — "it IB eovn a natural body; it ii xaiaed a fpiritoal body " ; Rflm.8:ll — "ihAll giro lift alio 
to yoor mortal bodies thxoogk hit Spirit that dvelleth ii yon " — here many ancient authorities read 
■'beeaue of hie Spirit that dveUeth in yon" — Bid rb ivoucovv avrov vvtviia), Birks, in his Dlffl- 
oulties of Belief, suggests that man, unlike angels, may have been provided with a 
fleshly body, (1) to objectify sin, and (2) to enable Christ to unite himself to the 
race. In order to save it* 

IV. Obioin op the Souii. 

Three theories wiih. regard to this subjeot have divided opinion : 

1. The Theory of Pre^txiatence, 

This view was held by Plato, Philo, and Origen ; by the first, in order 
to explain the sonl's possession of ideas not derived from sense ; by the 
second, to account for its imprisonment in the body ; by the third, to jus- 
tify the disparity of conditions in which inen enter the world. We concern 
ourselves, however, only with the forms which the view has assumed in 
modem times. Kant and Julius Mliller in Germany, and Edward Beecher 
in America, have advocated it, upon the ground that the inborn depravity 
of the human will can be explained only by supposing a personal act of 
self-determination in a previous, or timeless, state of being. 

The truth at the basis of the theory of pre^xlstence is simply the Ideal existence of 
the soul, before birth, in the mind of God — that is, Ood*s foreknowledge of it* The 
intuitive ideas of which the soul finds itself in posBession, such as space, time, cause, 
substance, right, God, are evolved from itself; in other words, man is so constituted 
that he perceives these truths upon proper occasions or conditions. The apparent 
recollection that we have seen at some past time a landscape which we know to be now 
for the first time before us, is an illusory putting together of fragmentary concepts or 
ft mistaking of a part for the whole ; we have seen something like a part of the land- 
scape,— wo fancy that we have seen this landscape, and the whole of it. Our recollec- 
tion of a past event or scene is one whole, but this one idea may have an indefinite 
number of subordinate ideas existing within it. The sight of something which Is similar 
to one of these parts suggests the past whole. Ck}leridge : *' The great law of the imagi- 
nation that likeness in part tends to become likeness of the whole." Augustine hinted 
that this Illusion of memory may have played an important part in developing the 
belief in metempsychosis. 

Other explanations are those of William James, in his Psychology: The brain 
tracts excited by the event proper, and those excited in its recall, are different; Bald- 
win, Psychology, 268, 264 : Wo may remember what we have seen in a dream, or there 
may be a revival of ancestral or race experiences. Still others suggest that the two 
hemispheres of the brain act asynchronously; self -consciousness or apperception is 
distinguished from perception ; divorce, from fatigue, of the processes of sensation and 
perception, causes paramnesia. Sully, Illusions, 280, speaks of an organic or atavistic 
memory : '* May it not happen that by the law of hereditary transmission . . . ancient 
experiences will now and then reflect themselves in our mental life, and so give rise to 
apparently personal recollections? '* Letison, The Crowd, believes that the mob is ata- 
vistic and that it bases its action upon inherited impulses : '* The inherited reflexes 
are atavistic memories*' (quoted in Colegrove, Memory, 204). 

Plato held that intuitive ideas are reminiscences of things learned in a previous state 
of being ; ho regarded the body as the grave of the soul ; and urgc>4 the fact that the 
soul had knowledge before it entered the body, as proof that the soul would have know- 
ledge after it left the body, that Is, would be immortal. See Plato, Meno, 83-85, Pha3do, 
72-76, Phaodrus, 245-250, Republic, 5 : 460 and 10 : 614. Alexander, Theories of the Will, 
86, 37 — " Plato represents preiJxisteut souls as having set before them a choice of virtue. 
The choice is free, but it will determine the destiny of each soul. Not God, but he who 



OBIGIK OF THE BOITL. 489 

chooses, is responsiblo for his choice. After makingr their choice, the souls go to the 
fates, who spin the threads of their 'destiny, and it is thenceforth irreversible. As 
Christian theology teaches that man #as free but lost his freedom by the fall of Adam, 
so Pluto affirms that the pre^xistent soul is free until it has chosen its lot in life.*' See 
Introductions to the above mentioned works of Plato in Jowett^s translation. Philo 
held that all souls are emanations from God, and that those who allowed themselves, 
unlike the angels, to be attracted by matter, are punished for this fall by imprison- 
ment in the body, which corrupts them, and from which they must break loose. See 
Philo, De Oigantibus, Pfelffer's ed., 2 : 960-364. Origen accounted for disparity of con- 
ditions at birth by the differences in the conduct of these same souls in a previous state. 
God's Justice at the first made all souls equal ; condition here corresponds to the degree 
of previous guilt ; KaU 20 : 3 — " oUmis itoading in tiie mtrkrt pliM idl« " = souls not yet brought into 
the world. The Talmudists regarded all souls as created at once in the beginning, and 
as kept like grains of corn in God*s granary, until the time should come for joining 
each to its appointed body. See Origen, De Anima, 7 ; ircpl apx£»y^ ii : 9 : 6 ; c/. i : 1 : 2, 4, 
18 ; 4 : 36. Origen*s view was condemned at the Synod of Oonstantinople, 538. Many of 
the preceding facts and references are taken from Bruch, Lehre der Prfiexistenz, trans- 
lated in Bib. Sac, 20 : 681-738. 

For modem advocates of the theory, see Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, sec 16; 
Religion in. d. Grenzen d. bl. Vcmunft, 26, 27 ; Julius Mtlller, Doctrine of Sin, 2 : 367-401 ; 
Edward Beecber, Conflict of Ages. The idea of pre^jcistence has appeared to a notable 
extent in modem poetry. See Vaughan, The Retrcate (VSai); Wordsworth, Intima- 
tions of Immortality in Early Childhood ; Tennyson, Two Voices, stanzas 105-119, and 
Early Sonnets, 25— ** As when with downcast eyes we muse and brood. And ebb into a 
former life, or seem To lapse far back in some confused dream To states of mystical 
similitude ; If one but speaks or hems or stirs his chair. Ever the wonder waxeth more 
and more. So that we say * AU this hath been before. All this hath been, I know not 
when or where.' So, friend, when first I looked upon your face. Our thought gave 
answer each to each, so true — Opposed mirrors each reflecting each — That though I 
knew not in what time or place, Methought that I had often met with you. And either 
lived in cither's heart and speech." Robert Browning, La Saisiaz, and Christina : 
** Ages past the soul existed ; Here an age 't is resting merely. And hence fleets again 
for ages." Rossetti, House of Life : ** I have been here before. But when or bow I can- 
not tell ; I know the grass beyond the door. The sweet, keen smell. The sighing sound, 
the lights along the shore. You have been mine before. How long ago I may not know ; 
But Just when, at that swallow's soar. Your neck turned so, Some veil did fall — I knew 
it all of yore " ; quoted in Colegrove, Memory, 103-106, who holds the phenomenon due 
to false induction and interpretation. 

Briggs, School, College and Character, 95—" Some of us remember the days when we 
were on earth for the first time;**— which reminds us of the boy who remembered 
sitting in a comer before he was bom and crying for fear he would bo a girl. A more 
notable illustration is that found in the Life of Sir Walter Scott, by Lockhart, his son- 
in-law, 8 : 274 — " Yesterday, at dinner time, I was strangely haunted by what I would 
call the sense of pre^xistence— viz., a confused idea that nothing that passed was said 
for the first time — that the same topics had been discussed and the same persons had 
started the same opinions on them. It is true there might have been some ground for 
recollections, considering that three at least of the company were old friends and had 

kept much company together But the sensation was so strong as to resemble 

what is called a mirage in the desert, or a calenture on board of ship, when lakes are 
seen in the desert and sylvan landscapes in the sea. It was very distressing yesterday 
and brought to mind the fancies of Bishop Berkeley about an ideal world. There was 
a vile sense of want of reality in all I did and said. .... I drank several glasses of 
wine, but these only aggravated the disorder. I did not find the in vino writas of the 
philosophers." 

To the theory of preexistenoe we urge the following objections : 

(a) It is not only wholly without support from Scripture, but it directly 
contradicts the Mosaic account of man's creation in the image of God, and 
Paul's description of all evil and death in the human race as the result of 
Adam^s sin« 



490 ▲jrrHBOPOLOGT, or the nocTRnrE of majt. 



9WKj^a^i^fL^yim^aai,hAM,'awmimjimL' UB.S:fi— -1hn*nLailln^;hMmiai«taii 
lil»tev»U,aii4Mfttkn^Kkai;aii»teftpMri ■HiaaBa.fcrAiiannHi.' The theory of 
pFhKxhsUsoce would itill k»Te it dovibtf nl wlietber all men are tfnnen, or wbetber God 
flMcrmblcs onljr ^imen opoo the earth. 

(/>) n the flOftd in this piieexisteQt state in» ocmscioiis and per^^ 
inexplicable that we shooldhaTe no remembrance of such pieexistenoe, and 
of to important a decision in that prerioos condition of being ; — if the sonl 
was jet nnooDscions and imperHmal, the theory fails to show how a moral 
act involying oonseqnenoes so Tast conld have been performed at alL 

Chrtet remembered bJspreCxisteat state; why should not we? There is erery reason 
to beliere that In the future state we shall remember our present exlstenoe ; why should 
we not now remember the past state from which we came? It may be objected that 
AujnMtfnJans hold to a sin of the race in Adam ~a sin whidi none of Adam*s descend- 
ants can remember. But we reply that no Auirustinian holds to a personal existence of 
each member of the race in Adam, and therefore no Au^ustinian needs to account for 
lack of memory of Adam's sin. The adrocate of preCxistenoe, howerer. does hold to 
a personal existence of each soul in a previous state, and therefore needs to account 
for our lack of memory of it. 

(c) The view sheds no light either npon the origin of sin, or upon God's 
justice in dealing with it^ since it throws back the first transgression to a 
state of being in which there was no flesh to tempt, and then represente 
God as putting the fallen into sensuous conditions in the highest d^ree 
nnfaverable to their restoration. 

This theory only increases the difficulty of explaining the ori^rin of sin, by pushiner 
back its bcgrinninip to a state of which we know lees than we do of the present. To say 
that the 8r>ul in that previous state was only potentially conscious and personal, is to 
deny any real probation, and to throw the blame of sin on God the Creator. Pfleiderer, 
Philos.ofBcli8ion. 1:228— ^^ In modem times, the philosophers Kant, Schelling- and 
Schopenhauer have explained the bad from an intellifirible act of freedom, which 
( according to SchcUinsr and Schopenhauer ) also at the same time effectuates the tempo- 
ral existence and condition of the individual soul. But what are we to think of as 
meant by such a mystical deed or act through which the subject of it first comes into 
existence ? Is it not this, that perhaps under this singular disguise there is concealed 
the simple thought that the origin of the bad lies not so much in a doing of the individ- 
ual troadom as rather in the rise of it,— that is to say, in the process of development 
through which the natural man becomes a moral man, and the merely potentially 
rational man becomes an actually rational man ? " 

{d) While this theory acoounte for inborn spiritual sin, such as pride 
and enmity to God, it gives no explanation of inherited sensual sin, which 
it holds to have come from Adam, and the guilt of which must logically be 
denied. 

While certain forms of the pre^xistenoe theory are exposed to the last objection indi- 
oatod in the text, Julius Mtiller claims that his own view escapes it ; see Doctrine of 
Sin, 2 : 303. His theory, ho says, ** would contradict holy Scripture if it derived inborn 
iinfuInosH ttf)lclu from this extra-temporal act of the individual, without recognizing in 
this sinfulness the element of hereditary depravity in the sphere of the natural life, and 
its connection with the sin of our first parents/* Mllller, whose trichotomy here deter- 
mines his whole subsequent scheme, holds only the vvtvfui to have thus fallen in a pre- 
OxiHtent state. The i^vxi) comes, with the body, from Adam. The tempter only brought 
man's latent perversity of will into open transgression. Sinfulness, as hereditary, does 
not involve guilt, but the hereditary principle is the ** medium through which the tran- 
scenilent self •perversion of the spiritual nature of man is transmitted to his whole tem- 
porul mode of being.** While man is bom guilty as to his vytvfia,, for the reason that 
this nvtvfia sinned in a pro^xistent state, he is also born guilty as to his ^x^i because 
this was one with the first man in his transgression. 



ORIQIK OF THE SOXJLi 491 

Even upon the most favorable statement of MUUer^s view, we fail to see how it can 
consist with the organic unity of the race ; for in that which chiefly constitutes us men 
— the vvtviia — we arc as distinct and separate creations as are the angels. We also fail 
to see how, upon this view, Christ can be said to take our nature ; or, if he takes it, how 
it can be without sin. See Brncstit Ursprung dcr SOnde, 2 : 1-247 ; Frohschammer, 
Ursprungder Secle, 11-17: Phllippi, Glaubenslehro. 3:92-122; Bruch, Lehre der Prttex- 
istenz, translated in Bib. Sao., 20 : 681-733. Also Bib. Sac., 11 : 18&-191 ; 12 : 156 ; 17 : 419-427 ; 
20:447: Kahnis, Dogmatik, 3; 280— "This doctrine is inconsistent with the indisput- 
able fact that the souls of children are like those of the parents ; and it ignores the 
connection of the individual with the race.** 

2. The Creatian Theory. 

This view was held by Aristotle, Jerome, and Pelagios, and in modem 
times has been advocated by most of the Boman Gatholio and Reformed 
theologians. It regards the soul of each human being as immediately 
created by God and joined to the body either at conception, at birth, or at 
some time between these two. The advocates of the theory urge in its 
favor certain texts of Scripture, referring to God as the Creator of the 
human spirit, together with the fact that there is a marked individuality 
in the child, which cannot be explained as a mere reproduction of the 
qualities existing in the parents. 

Creatianism, as ordinarily held, regards only the body as propagated from past gene- 
rations. Creatianists who hold to trichotomy would say, however, that the animal soul, 
the i^vxn, is propagated with the body, while the highest part of man, the vi^v/uia, is in 
each case a direct creation of Ood,— the nv*vii.a not being created, as the advocates of 
pre^xistence believe, ages before the body, but rather at the time that the body 
assumes its distinct individuality. 

Aristotle ( De Anima ) first grives definite expression to this view. Jerome speaks of 
God as ** making souls daily." The scholastics followed Aristotle, and through the 
influence of the Reformed church, creatianism has been the prevailing opinion for the 
last two hundred years. Among its best representatives are Turretin, Inst.* 6 : 13 ( vol. 
1:425); Hodge, Syst. TheoL,2;65-76; Martenson, Dogmatics, 141-148 ; Liddou, Elements 
of Religion, 99-106. Certain Reformed theologians have defined very exactly Qod*s 
method of creation. Polanus (5:31:1 ) says that Gk>d breathes the soul into boys, 
forty days, and into girls, eighty days, after conception. G(i8chel ( in Herzog, Encyclop., 
art: Seele) holds that while dichotomy leads to traducianism, trichotomy allies itself 
to that form of creatianism which regards the vKcvMa as a direct creation of God, but 
the ^vxn as propagated with the body. To the latter answers the family name ; to the 
former the Christian name. Shall we count George Macdonald as a believer in Pre6z- 
istence or in Creatianism, when he writes in his Baby's Catechism : ** Whore did you 
come from, baby dear ? Out of the everywhere into here. Where did you get your eyes 
so blue? Out of the sky, as I came through. Where did you get that little tear ? I 
found it waiting when I got here. Where did you get that pearly car? God spoke, 
and it came out to hear. How did they all Just come to be you ? God thought about 
me, and so I grew." 

Creatianism is untenable for the following reasons : 

( a ) The passages adduced in its supx)ort may with equal propriety be 

regarded as expressing Gk>d*s mediate agency in the origination of human 

souls ; while the general tenor of Scripture, as well as its rex)resentations 

of God as the author of man's body, favor this latter interpretation. 

Passages commonly relied upon by creatianists are the following : led 12 : 7— "the ^irii 
ivtnniBthnntoGodvIiogaTeit"; Ii. 57: 16 — "the souls thai I UTe nude"; Zech.l2:l — "JshoTah .... ▼hofbnu- 
eth ths spirit of man within him " ; lab. 12 : 9 ~ " the Father of spirits." But God is with equal clearness 
declared to be the former of man's body : see Fs. 139:13^ 14 — "thoa didst form mj inmu-d parts: 
Thoa didst oorer mA [ marg. 'knit me together* ] in mj mother's vomb. I will give thanks onto thee ; for I am jhar- 
ftiUy and wonderftdlj made : Wonderfiilare thy works" ; Jer. 1 : 5 — " I formed thee in the belly." Tet we do 
not hesitate to interpret these latter passages as expressive of mediate, notimmediate« 



494 AKTHBOPOLOOT, OB THE DOGTBIKB OF MAJT. 

AufTustine, Indeed, wavered in his statements with regard to the origin of the soul, 
apparently fearing that an explicit and pronounoed traducianism might involve mate- 
rialistic consequences ; yet, as logically lying at the basis of his doctrine of original sin, 
traducianism came to be the ruling view of the Lutheran reformers. In his Table Talk, 
Luther says : ** The reproduction of mankind is a great marvel and mystery. Had God 
consulted me in the matter, I should have advised him to continue the generation of 
the species by fashioning them out of clay, in the way Adam was fashioned ; as I should 
have counseled him also to let the sun remain always suspended over the earth, like a 
great lamp, maintaining perpetual light and heat.*^ 

Traducianism holds that man, as a species, was created in Adam. In Adam, the sub- 
stance of humanity was yet undistributed. We derive our immaterial as well as our 
material being, by natural laws of propagation, from Adam,— each individual man 
after Adam possessing a part of the substance that was originated in him. Sexual 
reproduction has for its purpose the keeping of variations within limit. Every mar- 
riage tends to bring back the individual type to that of the species. The offspring 
represents not one of the parents but both. And, as each of these parents repreaents 
two grandparents, the offepring really represents the whole race. Without this conju- 
gation the individual peculiarities would reproduce themselves in divergent lines like 
the shot from a shot-^un. Fission needs to be supplemented by conjugation. The use 
of sexual reproduction is to preserve the average individual in the face of a progressive 
tendency to variation. In asexual reproduction the offspring start on deviating lines 
and never mix their qualities with those of their mates. Sexual reproduction makes 
the individual the type of the species and gives solidarity to the race. See Maupas, 
quoted by Newman Smith, Place of Death in Evolution, 19-SS. 

John Milton, in his Christian Doctrine, is a Traducian. He has no faith in the notion 
of a soul separate from and inhabiting the body. He believes in a certain corporeity of 
the soul. Mind and thought are rooted in the bodily organism. Soul was not inbreathed 
after the body was formed. The breathing of God into man^s nostrils was only the 
quickening impulse to that which already had life. God does not create souls every 
day. ICan is a body-and-soul, or a soul-body, and he transmits himself as such. Harris, 
Moral Evolution, 171 — The individual man has a great number of ancestors as well as a 
great number of descendants. He is the central point of an hour-glass, or a strait 
between two seas which widen out behind and before. How then shall we escape the 
conclusion that the human race was most numerous at the beginning? We must 
remember that other children have the same great-grandparents with ourselves ; that 
there have been inter-marriages ; and that, after all, the generations run on in parallel 
lines, that the lines spread a little in some countries and periods, and narrow a little in 
other countries and periods. It is like a wall covered with paper in diamond pattern. 
The lines diverge and converge, but the figures are paralleL See Shedd, Dogm. TheoL. 
2:7-04, Hist. Doctrine, 2:1-28, Discourses and Essays, 250; Baird, Elohim Revealed, 
137-151, 33&-384; Edwards, Works, 2: 483; Hopkins, Works, 1:280; Birks, Difficulties of 
Belief, 161 ;Deiitz8ch, Bib. Psych., 128-142; Frohschammer, Ursprunff derSeele, 60-224. 

With regard to this view we remark : 

(a) It BeemB best to accord with Scripture, which represents Qod as 
creating the sx>ecies in Adam ( Gen. 1 : 27 ), and as increasing and perpetu- 
ating it through secondary agencies ( 1 : 28 ; c/. 22 ). Only once is breathed 
into man's nostrils the breath of life (2 : 7, c/. 22 ; 1 Cor. 11 : 8. Gen. 4:1; 
5 : 3 ; 46 : 26 ; c/. Acts 17 : 21-26 ; Heb. 7 : 10 ), and after man's formation 
God ceases from his work of creation ( Gen. 2:2). 

Gen. 1 : 27 — " And God created nan in his ovn vauuga, in the imag« of God created he him : male and female created 
hie them"; 28 — "ind God bleiBed them: and God said onto them, Befraitfiil,andmaltiplj, and replenish the earth"; 
cf, 22 — of the brute creation : " And God blessed them, sajing, B« froitfol, and multiply, and fill the waters 
' in the seas, and let birds moltipl j on the sarth." Gen. 2 : 7 — " And Jehorah God farmed man of the dust of the ground, 
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of liib ; and man became a liTing sonl '* ; cf. 22— '*and the rib which Jehorah 
Qod had taken from the nun, made he a woman, and brought hw unto the man" ; 1 Oor. 11 : 8 — " For the man is not of 
the woman; bat the woman of the man" (c^ av6p6i). Gen. 4: 1— "Eve .... bare Gain"; 5 : 3— "Adam .... 
begata8on....8eth"; 46 : 28 —"All the souls that came with Jacob into Igypt^ that came oat of his loins"; Acts 17: 26 
— "he made of one [* father' or^body '] ererj nation of men";Eeb.7:10 — Levi " was jet in the loins of 
hii&ther, when Kelchiiedsk met him" ; Gen. 2:2— "And on thesereath daj God flaiihsd his work which he had mads; 



ORIGIN OP THE SOUL. 495 

nd he rested on Um MYenth (Uy from all his work which he had made." Shedd, Do^m. Theol., 2 : 19-29, 
adduces also Johnl:13; 3:6; &om.l:13; 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:22; Iph.2:3; Eeb.l2:9; Pi. 139 : 15, 16i Only 
Aduin had the rij^ht to be a creatianlst. Westoott, Com. on Hebrews, 114 — ^^ Levi pay- 
infr tithes In Abraham implies that descendants are included in the ancestor so far that 
his acts have force for them. Physically, at least, the dead so rule the living. The indi- 
vidual is not a completely self-centred being. He is member in a body. So far tradu- 
danism is true. But, If this were all, man would be a mere result of the past, and would 
have no individual responsibility. There is an element not derived from birth, thou^rh 
it may follow upon it. Beco^rnltion of individuality is the truth in creatianism. Power 
of vision follows upon preparation of an organ of vision, modified by the latter but not 
created by it. So we have the social unity of the race, %)iu8 the personal responsibility 
of the individual, the influence of common thoughts plus the power of great men, the 
foundation of hope plus the condition of Judgment.'* 

( 6 ) It is favored by the analogy of vegetable and animal life, in which 
increase of unmbers is secured, not hj a mnltiplicity of immediate creations, 
but by the natural derivation of new individuals from a parent stock. A 
derivation of the human soul from its parents no more implies a materialis- 
tic view of the soul and its endless division and subdivision, than the simi- 
lar derivation of the brute proves the principle of intelligence in the lower 
animals to be wholly materiaL 

God's method is not the method of endless miracle. God works in nature through 
second causes. God does not create a new vital principle at the beginning of exist- 
ence of each separate apple, and of ^ch separate dog. Each of these is the result of a 
self-multiplying force, implanted once for all In the first of its race. To say, with 
Moxom (Baptist Beview, 1881:278), that God is the immediate author of each new 
individual, is to deny second causes, and to merge nature in God. The whole tendency 
of modem science is in the opposite direction. Nor is there any good reason for making 
the origin of the individual human soul an exception to the general rule. Augustine 
wavered in his traducianism because he feared the inference that the soul is divided 
and subdivided,— that is, that it is composed of parts, and is therefore material in its 
nature. But it does not follow that all separation is material separation. We do not, 
indeed, know how the soul is propagated. But we know that animal life is propagated, 
and still that it is not material, nor composed of parts. The fact that the soul is not 
material, nor composed of parts, is no reason why II may not be propagated also. 

It is well to remember that substance does not neceesarlly imply either extension or 
figure, Sul)8tantia is simply that which stands under, underlies, supports, or in other 
words that which is the (pround of phenomena. The propagation of mind therefore 
does not involve any dividing up, or splitting olf, as if the mind were a material mass. 
Flame is propagated, but not by division and subdivision. Professor Ladd is a oreatian- 
ist, together with Lotzo, whom he quotes, but he repudiates the idea that the mind is 
susceptible of division ; see Ladd, Philosophy of Mind, 206, 359-366 — ** The mind comes 
from nowhere, for it never was, as mind, in space, is not now in space, and cannot be 

conceived of as coming and going in space Mind is a growth Parents do 

not transmit their minds to their oifspilng. The child's mind does not exist before it 
acts. Its activities are its existence." So we might say that flame has no existence 
before it acts. Yet it may owe its existenoe to a preceding flame. The Indian proverb 
is : ** No lotus without a stem." Hall Gaine, in his novel The Manxman, tells us that 
the Deemster of the Isle of Man had two sons. These two sons were as unlike each 
other as are the inside and the outside of a bowl. But the bowl was old Deemster himself. 
Hartley Coleridge inherited his father's imperious desire for stimulants and with it 
his inability to resist their temptation. 

(c) The observed transmission not merely of physical, but of mental and 
spiritual, characteristics in families and races, and especially the uniformly 
evil moral tendencies and dispositions which all men possess from their 
birth, are proof that in soul, as well as in body, we derive our being from 
our human ancestry. 

Galton, in his Hereditary Genius, and Inquiries into Human Faculty, fumishea 
abundant proof of the transmission of mental and spiritual characteristics from father 



496 AXTHROPOLOOY, OB THE DOCTBIKB OF VAK. 

to ffon. Illufltratlons, in the case of families, ore the American Adamses, the English 
Ger>rKti8, the French Uourbuns, the German Uachs. Illustrations, in the case of races, 
arc the Indians, the Negrroes, the Chinese, the Jews. Hawthorne represented the intro- 
spection and the conscience of Puritan New England. Emerson had a minister amon^ 
his ancestry, either on the paternal or the maternal side, for eight generations back. 
Every man is ** a chip of the old block.*' ** A man is an omnibus, in which all his ances- 
tors are seated '* ( O. W. Holmes ). Variation is one of the properties of living things, 
— the other is transmission. ** On a dissecting table, in the membranes of a new-bom 
lnfant*s body, can be seen *the drunkard's tinge.' The blotches on his grand-child's 
cheeks furnish a mirror to the old debauchee. Heredity is God's visiting of sin to the 
third and fourth generations." On heredity and depravity, see Phelps, in Bib. Sac.. 
Apr. 1884 : 254—*^ When every molecule in the paternal brain bears the shape of a point 
of interrogation, it would border on the miraculous if we should find the exclamation- 
sign of faith in the brain-cells of the child." 

Itobert G. IngersoU said that most great men have great mothers, and that most 
groat women have grreat fathers. Most of the groat are like mountains, with the 
valley of ancestors on one side and the depression of posterity on the other. Haw- 
thorne's House of the Seven Gables illustrates the principle of heredity. But in his 
Marble Faun and Transformation, Hawthorne unwisely intimates that sin is a neoesBity 
to \irtue, a background or condition of good. Dryden, Absalom and AhithopheU 1 : 166 
— ^ Great wits are sure to madness near allied. And thin partititions do their bounds 
divide." Lombroso, The Man of Genius, maintains that genius is a mental disease 
allied to epileptiform mania or the dementia of cranks. If this were so, we should 
infer that civilization is the result of insanity, and that, so soon as Napolc*ons, Dantes 
and Newtons manifest themselves, they should be confined In Genius Asylums. Robert 
Bn)wning, Ilolienstiel-Schwangau, comes nearer the truth: ''A solitary great man's 
worth the world. God takes the business into his own hands At such time: Who 

creates the novel flower Contrives to guard and give it breathing-room. 'Tis 

the great Gardener grafts the excellence On wildlings, where he will." 

{d) The traducian doctrine embraces and acknowledges the element of 
truth which gives i)laii8ibility to the creatian view. Traducianism, properly 
defined, admits a divine concurrence throughout the whole development of 
the human sx^ecies, and allo\^^ under the guidance of a superintending 
Providence, special improvements in ty|)e at the birth of marked men, 
similar to those which we may suppose to have occurred in the introduction 
of new varieties in the animal creation. 

Page-Ilobcrts, Oxford University Sermons: *Mt is no more unjust that man should 
inherit evil tendencies, than that he should inherit good. To make the former impos- 
sible is to make the latter impossible. To object to the law of heredity, is to object to 
God's ordinance of society, and to say that God should have made men, like the angels, 
a company, and not a race." The common moral characteristics of the race can only 
be accounted for upon the Scriptural view that " thai whkk ii bom of the Hash ii Hash '* ( Jokn 8:6). 
Since propagation is a propagation of soul, as well as body, we see that to beget children 
under improper conditions is a crime, and that foeticide is murder. Haeckel, Evolu- 
tion of Man, 2:3— *' The human embryo passes through the whole course of its devel- 
opment in forty weeks. Each man is really older by this period than is usually 
assumed. When, for example, a child is said to be nine and a quarter years old, he is 
really ten years old.'* Is this the reason why Hebrews call a child a year old at birth? 
President Edwards prayed for his children and his children's children to the end of 
time, and President Woolsey congratulated himself that he was one of the inheritors 
of those prayers. IL W. Etnerson : ** How can a man get away from his ancestors ?" 
Men of genius should select their ancestors with great care. When begin the instruc- 
tion of a child ? A hundred years before he is bom. A lady whose children were 
noisy and troublesome said to a Quaker relative that she wished she could get a good 
Quaker governess for them, to teach them the quiet ways of the Society of Friends. 
'* It would not do them that service," was the reply ; ** they should have been rocked 
In a Quaker cradle, if they were to learn Quakerly ways." 

Galton, Natural Inheritance, 101 — ** The child inherits partly from his parents, partly 
^••oro his ancestry. In every population that intermarries freely, when the genealogy 
of any man is traced far backwards, his ancestry will bo found to consist of such varied 



THE MORAL NATURE OF MAN. 497 

elements that they are indistingruishable from the sample taken at haphazard from the 
srenoral population. Galton speaks of the tendency of peculiarities to revert to the 
general tj-pc, and says thut a man's brother is twice as nearly related to him as his father 
is, and nine times as nearly as his cousin. The mean 8tatiu*c of any particular class of 
men will be the same as that of the race : In other words, it will be mediocre. This tells 
heavily against the full hereditary transmission of any rare and valuable gifU as only 
a few of the many children would resemble their parents." We may add to these 
thoughts of Galton that Christ himself, as respects his merely human ancestry, was not 
so much son of Mary, as he was Son of man. 

Brooks, Foundations of Zo(51ogryf li4~167 — In an investigated case, 'Mn seven and a 
hair generations the maximum ancestry for one person is 382, or for three persons 1148. 
The names of 452 of them, or nearly half, are recorded, and these 462 named ancestors 
are not 452 distinct persons, but only 140, many of them, in the remote generations, 
being common ancestors of all three in many lines. If the lines of descent from the 
unrecorded ancestors were interrelated in the same way, as they would surely be in an 
old and stable community, the total ancestry of these three persons for seven and a 
half generations would be 378 persons instead of 1146. The descendants of many die 
out. All the members of a species descend from a few ancestors in a remote genera- 
tion, and these few are the common ancestors of all. Extinction of family names is 
very common. We must seek in the modern world and not in the remote past for an 
explanation of that diversity among individuals which passes under the name of varia- 
tion. The genealogy of a species is not a tree, but a slender thread of very few strands, 
a little frayed at the near end, but of immeasurable lengrth. A fringe of loose ends all 
along the thread may represent the animals which having no descendants are now as 
if they had never been. Each of the strands at the near end is important as a possible 
line of union between the thread of the past and that of the distant future.** 

Weismann, Heredity, 270, 272, 380, 884, denies Brooks's theory that the male element 
represents the principle of variation. He finds the cause of variation in the union of 
elements from the two parents. Each child unites the hereditary tendencies of two 
parents, and so must be different from either. The third generation is a compromise 
between four different hereditary tendencies. Brooks finds the cause of variation In 
sexual reproduction, but he bases his theory upon the transmission of acquired char- 
acters. This transmission is denied by Weismann, who says that the male germ-cel> 
does not play a different part from that of the female in the construction of the embryo. 
Children inherit quite as much from the father as from the mother. Like twins are 
derived from the same egg-cell. No two germ-cells contain exactly the same combina- 
tions of hereditary tendencies. Changes in environment and organism affect posterity, 
not directly, but only through other changes produced in its germinal matter. Hence 
efforts to reach high food cannot directly produce the giraffe. See Dawson, Modem 
Ideas of Evolution, 235-239; Bradford, Heredity and Christian Problems; Ribot, Hered- 
ity ; Woods, Heredity in Royalty. On organic unity in connection with realism, see 
Hodge, in Princeton Rev., Jan. 1865 : 125-135; Dabney, Theology, 317-321. 

V. The MoBAii Nature op Man. 

By the moral nature of man we mean those powers which fit him for 
right or wrong action. These powers are intellect, sensibility, and will, 
together with that 2>eculiar power of discrimination and impulsion, which 
we call conscience. In order to moral action, man has intellect or reason, 
to discern the difference between right and wrong ; sensibility, to be moved 
by each of these ; free will, to do the one or the other. Intellect, sensibil- 
ity, and will, are man's three facultiea But in connection with these facul- 
ties there is a sort of activity which involves them all, and without which 
there can be no moral action, namely, the activity of conscience. Con- 
science applies the Dioral law to particular cases in our personal exx)erience, 
and proclaims that law as binding upon us. Only a rational and sentient 
being can be truly moral ; yet it does not come within our province to treat 
of man*s intellect or sensibility in generaL We speak here only of Con- 
science and of Will. 
82 






i^^ JUL «yy.)::-j.*z.v::Lj-' i:ii.iilr:il:»-*^ C LLVz-rrit^ i* k izinriiiff t;tf self zzietsk^ 
ii^j <riT w.'^i ki. I !<itSK^ fz- ti. i-iHtrti.c. 'v.'Cl & zij'.ckl •Cik2)Lu'5. cr j*"w. A33- 

Slid TTOIig. 



U n*/ «:7«ni»r ethi*:*' fjHe^tj krj arjR- tids ?^i»7» 2f & 
nlxr. CrjAKveciW: » iJE« Lamer: r: hw v> Ao vtt^ zicr:^ t«f.zxr *^' rej«::a:c&. w ikcc- 

wiU »/.t witb r>rf*T»:^xft- v^ a <xrrta:a caiai of ';iS:>Hc?a. C^c»:>to<* itmjt '•m lie- n^^ 

kifiwvjjr of our tib^>ujr'-iiA. 4iE«£r«s aad toiTI^.cx :2 c^.o^er.'trcc: -wzit. * kr^^nap of tbe 
Writ xhMX Low ttesK tb<>aj(iit£. 4usire» aad ro^rxc*: so croe»»:^i«c«e i« a c«;o-k=> vtsiE. a 
kiM/v^j^jr of our uioraJ a^.t^ il:>4 staus is crjCAtcf y:«« vjt«; a krrovmf >:f » •a»r =>*rai 
ctA£Mliu^l 'jr Liw wbi'.-h is Cf/Ci0.tr.\*f^ oi «> f c:r xr-j» *frtL *i>i :i:>t-T»-f -:** a^ hirinr ain2>:r^ 
Ur ov*i-r uc L«4d, PLiioM^^phy of N:ad, l-Tr-lSS— •'Tbie c*'-c-*r=.nA':>--r '-f s*-:^ irT-cne-f 
■^flf-dJrt'iEiptkHL 4ouUfr 'y>ni*f.v/Ufcs«». Wiib^^ut it Kah'/a catc^-rSotl ir=f»eT«t:T»e in 
lm\MM»tih]^. Tb«; orj^ tfrlf }iijT down tfacr lnv Uj \b^ oit^r SL-if. ^d^.r^ li. thrL«:co» it. 
TbJJi ift v^xat is u^MnU vfaeo Uk apoeUe aijs : '^ a u avt I as ■• is. »s sx as twtum it at * 

B. O/niiCUrZice dificriminaHve and impulsive. — Bat we need to define 
mr/re narrowly ImAIi the- iut^Ilectoal and the emotional elements in con- 
aci^^uoe. An rehift^aiH the intellectual element, we mar saj that conscience 
IM a iftwer of jn<l|^ent, — it declares oar acU» or states to conform, or not to 
conform, Uj law ; it dr^c^reft the acta or states which conform to be obliga- 
i^jry, — ihfjWi which do not onform, to lie forbidden. In other words, 
coiiMcif;nor; jn'lg'fS : ( 1 ) This is ri^ht ( or, wrong ) ; ( 2 ) I onght ( or, I 
oii^ht not ). In o^>nnf?ction with this latter jadgment, there comes into view 
th'; ^HKitional elemcut of c^>UHcienoe, — we feel the claim of datr ; there 
is an inn^fr Hr;nHr; tliat tlie iiTong mast not be done. Thos consdenoe is ( 1 ) 
diit<;nnjiiiative, and ( 2 ) imj^mlsive. 

Ji/^MriNfin, PrinrHpk^ and Practlof* of MoraIit7,173— **Tbc one distinctiTe function 
of v/ttM:W.uiJ: \n ttiat of autliorifatlve arrlf-judfanents in the consfious presence of 
a Nij|/r<7in<r fcrM/riaJity Ut whom wc as yturMms feel ourselves accountable. It is this 
twofoM iMrrwinal eififient in every judfcirient of consciencr% viz^ the conscious self- 
jii'liCfiK'ni in the pr*j»¥'tuin of Uut all«judidnir Deity, which has led such writers as Bain 
and H|Hrri<^'r micI Hti;phen U» attf;inpt the explanation of the origin and authority of 
«:<inii';f<*nf'«;Hfi the prfMluet of |mrr:ntaltntininfiraiids'>cial environment. . . . Conscience 
in not prud'-ntiul wr a/iviiciry nor ex'.tfrutive, but s'ilely judicial. Conscience is the 
inorul ntutfin, pronoiitieinir ufKin moral atrtions. Consciousness furnishes law ; con- 
iK:ienfN} pronounf^ii jmltiiwuiH ; it MayN : Thou Hlialt, Tliou shalt not. Every man must 
(iti<;y hlN eorweierujo; if it U not enlUhtenw], tlintis his look-out. The caUousinflr of 
tumHt'U'iii'Ai in this life is ainiidy a |xrniil infliction.'* 8. S. Times, Apl. 5, 1906 : 185— 
*' Doinic MM well aM w<; know how is not enoijKh, unless we know just what is right and 
tlien do t luit. (UhI never ti'llM \m merrily to do our t^est, or according to our knowledge. 
It In our duty Ut know what is right, and then to do it. Ignorantia legia nemlnem 
oxcuaat. We have nMiKiiMlbility for knowing preliminary to doing." 



THE MORAL NATUBB OP MAN. 499 

0. Conscience distinguished from other mental processes — The nature 
and office of conscience will be still more clearly perceived if we distinguish 
it from other processes and operations with which it is too often confounded. 
The term conscience has been used by various writers to designate either 
one or all of the following : 1. Moral intuition — the intuitive perception 
of the difference between right and wrong, as opposite moral categories. 
2. Accepted law — the application of the intuitive idea to general classes 
of actions, and the declaration that these classes of actions are right or 
wrong, apart from our individual relation to them. This accepted law is 
the complex product of ( a) the intuitive idea, ( 6 ) the logical intelligence, 
( c) experiences of utility, {d) influences of society and education, and {e) 
positive divine revelation. 8. Judgment — applying this accepted law to 
individual and concrete cases in our own experience, and pronouncing our 
own acts or states either past, present, or prospective, to be right or wrong. 
4. Command — authoritative declaration of obligation to do the right, or 
forbear the wrong, together with an impulse of the sensibility away from 
the one, and toward the other. 6. Bemorae or approval — moral senti- 
ments either of approbation or disapprobation, in view of past acts or states, 
regarded as wrong or right. 6. Fear or hope — instinctive disposition of 
disobedience to expect punishment, and of obedience to expect reward. 

Ladd, Philos. of Conduct, 70—" The feelinir of the ought is primary, esBential, unique ; 
the Judgrmcnts as to what one ought are the results of environment, education and 
reflection." The sentiment of Justice Is not an inheritance of civilized man alone. No 
Indian was ever robbed of his lands or had his government allowance stolen from him 
who was not as keenly conscious of the wrong as in like oircumstanoes we could con- 
ceive that a philosopher would be. The ounhtnen of the ought is certainly intuitive ; 
the xbhynees of the ought ( conformity to God ) Is possibly intuitive also ; the whaintw of 
the ought is less certainly intuitive. Cutler, Beginnings of Ethics, 163, 164 — ** Intuition 
tells us that we are obliged ; why we are obliged, and what we are obliged to, we must 
learn elsewhere." Obliooiion^thvit which is binding on a man; (mght Is something 
owed ; dviy is something due. The intuitive notion of duty (intellect ) is matched by 
the sense of obligation ( feeling ). 

Bixby, Crisis in Morals, S08, 270 — '*A11 men have a sense of right,— of right to life, 
and contemporaneously perhaps, but certainly afterwards, of right to personal 
property. And my right Implies duty in my neighbor to respect it. Then the sense of 
right becomes objective and impersonal. My neighbor's duty to me implies my duty 
to him. I put myself in his place." Bowne, Principles of Ethics, 156, 188 — '* First, the 
feeling of obligration, the idea of a right and a wrong with corresponding duties, is uni- 
versal. . • . Secondly, there is a very general agreement in the formal principles of 

action, and largely in the virtues also, such as benevolence, justice, gratitude 

Whether we owe anything to our neighbor has never been a real question. The prac- 
tical trouble has always lain in the other question : Who is my neighbor ? Thirdly, the 
specific contents of the moral ideal are not fixed, but the direction in which the ideal 
lies is generally discernible. . . . We have in ethics the same fact as in intellect ~ a 
potentially infallible standard, with manifold errors in its apprehension and appli- 
cation. Lucretius held that degradation and paralysis of the moral nature result from 
religion. Many claim on the other hand that without religion morals would disappear 
from the earth." 

Robinson, Princ. and Prac. of Morality, 178— ** Fear of an omnipotent will is very 
different from remorse in view of the nature of the supreme Being whose law we have 
violated." A duty is to be settled in accordance with the standard of absolute right, 
not as public sentiment would dictate. A man must be ready to do right In spite of 
what everybody thinks. Just as the decisions of a judge are for the time binding on all 
grood citizens, so the decisions of conscience, as relatively binding, must always be 
obeyed. They are presumptively right and they are the only present guide of action. 
Yet man's present state of sin makes it quite possible that the decisions which are rel- 



Wr AJPTHl:OK>UfCT, 02 TH£ IKKTZIXZ OT MA^T. 



tA't*'>v rtriit viMjr V b>jB'iiirLf:r -v^var. It » ncn unurt lo ute gbc:** tixDC- 
4i^r r-xi'.*uL <'4iJ (iR4LijdHfcr4E. HifciJ-.*;- (»-•»:: ** Miizi » fl?si (iiztT i^ HvA 10 /<ili*tf hi> ocv- 
txA'iripiiii^liK'JUHni (fut I"/? uuTTiM-r: t. Fauo*;. E: ziiuc Trainee. M> — ** Xcchmr v k- 
by lis '.nni vjuf^Mcr/i. "^ Afii » J— • I ^r_7 tMap: »* zraf te:! vpe » U 




D. O.'XiM'Mruee tJbe zu' ■»! ja-ikihrr of tLt* siCtiiL — Frion viitt has been 
pT'r'iiomJT Hki'l, it i» eriiitiLt ILmI oiJv 3. hliI -L ar>e j»3v«pe-rlT iuri-aie-i 
uXil<:T tii^ X^nu orjziM.'ieiiCie. O^iianTiioe is tL«r xijorki jadiciazy of the ».i 
— tl»t jji'j'vtfr 'vixLin of JTi'iCTi*fiit aiid cy.mnaiiii Cczisroiez^cie inni^ J11J4. 
i^>yir(liii^ to tlie lnv (dv»ru U# it, tzid tL'-zt-fore, SDce the mcnJ gainlaru 
iu>v'j>t^ hr xh^ T*a^jii hat be iin}>erfvct, its dccLdonSy wLUe relativelT 
yiA^ jsjmv \m: nJif^^riUAj til just — L aud 2. beloi^ to the moral r€a«^n^ 
\jni% wA V> er^iivri'r'iioe proj^-r. Heuoe the dntj of enlightening and colti- 
vati.^j^ t}j<e u^^jml r<^aM^ii, iy> that c^nfcience maj have a proper standard of 
yi*hrisx*-riA. — -J. axid C. belou^f i/-» the sphere of morxtl ^erttim^.ui^ and not to 
tym*/:i*iYMti i3T*j\Mfir. The ofiioe of eonaciepce is to " bear vitnees ** ( Boim. 

lfv>ij(yJ tyyth fr'^Mi if«<?Liw arjd i)i«r pfrnA-ption of lii^ron the one hand, and from the 
jfiomJ t^ffit i rxi<rfit4i of « J .-pro If AT i' in and dL<«aii)*r*^batioD < in the • *XhvT. Con9i*ieDce does not 
f urfji^h ttj^ law, but «t U«n wituew with thcr law wLi*.h » funn«htid br oth^*r aouroeft. 
ft at U'A **that iMiWifT of uiiud by wbieh moral law is disoi.irerc^ to each individuai ** 
'raW*fnr'»l, M'^nd yhii'Mtf\thy\77 f, nor can we Fpeak of Tcmjick'nce. the law" (as 
W>i/'w<'iJ d'^A In biff hUrw^mtJ! of Morality, 1 : 259-305 •. Consckiioe is not the law-book, 
Ui Um: i:fMrt r*Mjm^ tnjt H !•• tlie judif.% — whrjse business is. not to make law, but to 
d«^;l'Vr «A<M« wyi^tirViuy^ b> tb<; law ffi\'en to him. 

An '.''yrjiy.'itrri'y; ik not Wrjri-lati v<;, ko it is not n-trlbuti^-e ; as it is not the law-book, so 
It 111 not th<r ^.\i*'.rifi. We fiiiy. \u*)int:t\^ in [Kfpular language, that ci>nscience scourges or 
O'tuiif t iD^fit, but ft In onjy in tlf* N^.TUtf.'' in which we say that the Judge punishi«, — 1. e^ 
thfou^fh tlM: feli<'riff. Tlje monil sentiments are the sheriff. — they carry out the 
iliTlitioriN '/f «^tn¥^:U'iit^% i \u: jiKlge ; but thej are not themselves conscience, any more 
tliari %.\i»i ^\iMr\ft Is tlw; judife. 

'ifily thin d'HrtriiNf, tliat «^>ns(.'i(.'nce does not discover law, can explain on the one 
band Ww. Uujl iUiil m*'U un; iMfUwl to follow their consciences, and on the other hand 
th«; tiuit tliat tlieir i:*fiut:U;ntiM tif» greatly differ as to what is right or wrong in partic- 
uiur fM^m, Tlur truth iH, tliut iftntit-UmfX is uniform and infallible, in the sense that it 
fll wuyit 'UurltU-H rlyhf ly a^.'^'finling to the law given it. Men's decisions \-ary, only because 
tli<: nioi-al rttuitni Uitn pre«<;nt4-«l to the conscience different standards by which to Judge. 

Coijifrienf ;(; f;an In; (^lueat«:rl only in tlie sense of acquiring greater facility and quick- 
tu^ui in »fiui(lrig Un d(M;iMforiH. Kflucaition has its chief effect, not upon the conscience, 
hut ur*</n the riiorul rcux^in. in n.^etlfying itsemmeousor imperfect standards of Judg- 
ni«'iit. Oi v«' «;'iriM;feri(r<;a riglit Liw by which Ut Judge, and its detrisions will be uniform, 
and iiim«iluti*ly tu wi'll as n?Juti vely Just. We are bound, not only to ** follow our con- 
sel'MMr*'," t*ut to have a right eonmrienee t(j follow, — and to follow It, not as one follows 
th«' UiiMt h<; drlv<?N, but as tiie S'>ldier follows his commander. Kobert J. Burdctte: 
** Kollfiwfng r;ou(u.'i<'fi(re uh a guide is like following oue*8 nose. It Is important to get 
the wmo |>oiuf I'd right \)t;Tt/ro it is safe to follow it. A man can keep the approval of 
hiHowu eouNeifnc*} in vary much the same way that he can keep dlr;.ctly behind his 
no»tf', find go wrong ail thf? time." 

('onN<-i«!n(.'«; in tlie (;o:i-knowlng of a particular act or state, as comlag under the law 
u*itif\}U't\ \iy tiie rifiMon aM to riglit and wn>ng; and the Judgment of conscience sub- 
NUtncN t ills w.l or NtiJii und<*r that. giMieral standarrl. Conscience cannot include the law 
^(iinnot ItHifir //f the law, --Ixfciiuse reason only knows, never coTi-knows. Beasoa 
says fcio; uuly Judgment says coiiscio. 




THE MORAL NATURE OF MAN. 501 

This vlewenableu us to reconcile the intuitional and the empirical theories of morals. 
Each has its element of truth. The ori^rinal sense of ri^^ht and wron^ is intuitive, — no 
education could ever impart the idea of the difFerenoe between ri^ht and wron^ to one 
who had it not. But what classes of things are right or wrong, we learn by the exer- 
cise of our logical intelligence, in connection with experiences of utility, influences of 
society and tradition, and positive divine revelation. Thus our moral reason, through 
a combination of intuition and education, of internal and external information as to 
general principles of right and wrong, furnishes the standard according to which con- 
science may Judge the particular caaca which come before it. 

This moral reason may become depraved by sin, so that the light becomes darkness 
(lUt. 6:22, 23) and conscience has only a perverse standard by which to Judge. The 
"weak" conscience (i Oor.8:12) is one whose standard of Judgment is yet imperfect; the 
conscience **bruded" (Rey. Vers.) or "mu«1'* (A. V.) "uvithahotiron" (iTim.4:2) is one 
whose standard has been wholly perverted by practical disolKxlicnce. The word and 
the Spirit of God are the chief agencies in rectifying our standards of Judgment, and so 
of enabling conscience to make absolutely right decisions. God can so unite the soul 
to Christ, that it becomes partaker on the one hand of his satisfaction to Justice and is 
thus "^riBkladfromaneriloonadaiMe** (Ielki0:22), and on the other hand of his sanctifying 
power and is thus enabled In certain respects to obey God*s command and to speak of a 
"good oonadioM" (1 M. 8:16— of single act; 8:2i — of state) instead of an "eril oonioi«nM*' 
( Eeb. 10 : 22 ) or a conscience " dafilad " ( Tit. i : 15 ) by sin. Here the " good oonsdenoe '* is the con- 
science which has been obeyed by the will, and the "eril oomdenM" the conscience which 
has been disobeyed ; with the result, in the first case, of approval from the moral senti- 
ments, and, in the second case, of disapproval. 

E. Conscience in its relation to God as law-giver. — Since conscience, in 
the projjer sense, gives uniform and infallible judgment that the right is 
supremely obligatory, and that the wrong must be forborne at every cost, 
it can bo called an echo of God*s voice, and an indication in man of that 
which his own true being requires. 

Conscience has sometimes been described as the voice of God in the soul, or as the 
personal presence and influence of God himself. But we must not identify conscience 
with God. D. W. Faunce : " Conscience is not God, — it is only a part of one's self. To 
build up a religion about one's own conscience, as if it wore God, is only a refined self- 
ishness— a worship of one part of one's self by another part of one's self." In The 
Excursion, Wordsworth speaks of conscience as ** God's most intimate presence in the 
soul And his most perfect image in the world." But in his Ode to Duty he more dis- 
creetly writes : ** Stem daughter of the voice of God I O Duty I if that name thou love. 
Who art a light to guide, a rod To check the erring, and reprove. Thou who art victory 
and law When empty terrors overawe. From vain temptations dost set free And 
calmst the weary strife of frail humanity I " Here is an allusion to the Hebrew Bath 
KoL ** The Jews say that the Holy Spirit spoke during the Tabernacle by TTrim and 
Thummim, under the first Temple by the Prophets, and under the second Temple by 
the Bath Kol— a divine intimation as inferior to the oracular voice proceeding from 
the mercy seat as a daughter is suppcraed to be inferior to her mother. It is also used in 
the sense of an approving conscience. In this case it is the echo of the voice of God in 
those who by obeying hear " ( Hershon's Talmudic Miscellany, 2, note). This phrase, 
" the echo of God's voice, " Is a correct description of conscience, and Wordsworth 
probably had it in mind when he spoke of duty as *' the daughter of the voice of God." 

Robert Browning describes conscience as '* the great beacon-light God sets in all 

The worst man upon earth .... knows in his conscience more Of what right is, than 
arrives at birth In the best man's acts that we bow before. " Jackson, James Martineau* 
154 — The sense of obligation is *' a piercing ray of the great Orb of souls." On Words- 
worth's conception of conscience, see A. H. Strong, Great Poets, 30»-368. 

Since the activity of the immanent God reveals itself in the normal operations of our 
own faculties, conscience might be also regarded as man's true self over against the 
false self which we have set up against it. Theodore Parker defines conscience as ** our 
consciousness of the conscience of God." In hid fourth year, says Chadwick, his bio- 
grapher ( pages 12, 13, 185 ), young Theodore saw a little spotted tortoise and lifted his 
hand to strike. All at once something checked his arm, and a voice within said dear 
and loud : " It is wrong." He asked his mother what it was that told him it was wrong. 



502 ASTHBOPOI/KiT, OH THE IK>CTBISZ OF XAST. 



/^ 



Gb^ v;;^ a vwr f rms b»7 'T'*^ vTti; bf^ k7.*r:>zi. azi4 lAkior faim in ber ■rxztf aod 
»«. 'juu i: vjim0.viii'>^ inr. I i*n^h-T v.- 'ajJ rt tut- rojtie '^f fy'ifi in zh*. «anJ of aiaiL. If 
v'^u ijun/m auad '.»iA7 it. iifti n v;^ sjaiUc «-i«3iinbT un^ ciearvr. ai>d vU ft:va;v fncude 
hirif^ : but Jf t'.'u Wm m 4^9if «iLr tn'l <lAOi>T, Tbea It viiJ f»de Ciin ImJe If iictkb. 
■wriil }»it\': T'/v mJL: ixt lb*r oiirk jtrjd vituo-jt n ru»vr. Tour iil*- dc-pexMlf c«n yacr 
tbj» intie vcmw--** K. T, hmr.i^ Htn.> Kjuov>i4^ rjf Nun and of God. K. 171— -] 
lia» 'j^xiM.-Kb'A;. i» bftr liai» tiufin«. OJvm.•ilaJ^^ no txtwc; tliui taknt, make* him goaiL 
H^ Ji jr>^ 'AJJ 1* ^ S'^ii'jv* vm^.'tfOMijt axid uiits^ taknt. .... Tbcr nOaxsoD btrvMs 
rtA tATUift vjKuvai'iiitD^am msjA ovrjM'ieuw:. viucii are in fjKt but f omtf of tiie aame vcn^ 
VMtilMf v>tL«;la(C9ttiiat jT ifruj ttettiikAOf wxacittiofcthatiiian*»«nBQcn]8Dea»<^ 
waif is «.-!jti*41]r ez|«TKtiOHl.~ 

Tii^ '^xiM/jKso;; of tirtrf«ipeaierBt« man maj hav^ such ricrbt FUuMlarda. and iiai 
max ^A Vjiitj^n^ b7'«iu'.'ii usif'.'nzJj riytit action, tiiat itf rcnce. tb<.'U^ it if not itwif 
O'^'f x'A'jfu 1* >•« tiie v»-ry *r.b'> of G^yi'i vijot. 11>#- reii«/wed c^ooMaeDOC- nay take up 
Juto itt/b-iU «*d rnaj ^xprew. tht wiutf^n of tLe Holy Pfnrit (Im.!:! — ^laTlki 
(kna. I Jt aft. sj iiar mii lumraf i Jlaiai t:% at 3 *^ iiij E^lti " : r/. t : K— "iht Spdr3 i 
v.uMi Ti'jL. OCT qnnL ua*. vt an aijum tUnit" . But ev«-D wb(.4 wmsck^oe judpea aooordiiir 
t'/ imp''rf Mt KUJudardft. aud ix in:(tf.'rf*^-tlj- ''l^y'-*) bj* tbf- vili. there is a ff^witanedtr In 
H* \jU*rrusj'*^ aud a S'.' vf.-reiirutj ixi i\Jtt '^juhimxAb. It dec-larea that vhaierer to ri^lit 
naijurt icr d'^rje. Tb«r iiiiiJ'Tatii^ 'jf onwi'ieiii-^ i*^ a ** f ai<rp:incal Smpent:T«'* rKant >. 
J 1 ub JZid^i^'udeut of tb«; Lumazi viJL Even vb«'D diw^beyed, it still aaaeru jt« autboritT. 
iVrf 'jre i^tfUi^i/iOi^* tiwry <Abiar impolfe aad affection of man's nature is calied to bov. 

F. OjiuscifDOL- in its relati^A to God as holy. — CozLScience is not an 
or'nriiisd auUiority. It i^fAuXh to Sfjin^fihiixfi lii^jrher tlian itfA'lf. The 
•*a»ii}i'yrity of ojuaciazioti " ii> Biiuply the authority of the moral law, or 
rath'T, the authority of the jierv^Xial G^>1, of whr^se nature the law is but a 
trauMrrifiC O^zixrienoe, then.-fore, vith iti» cjiitiutial and FU]>reme demand 
that tlje right Bhould be done, fumishes the Ix-st witness to man of the 
exifU'iityn of a jthThfJiihl (i(A, and of the supremacy of holiness in him in 
whobe ima^e we are uia^le. 

In kuowinjf M^f in ooniKAti'^ri with moral law. man not only getr bis ben knowledge 
of t^-ll, but liib IjtttX knowjfi^lire of tbat otb'rr K-lf opfKtsjte to bim. namely, G<4. Gor- 
d'^fj, Thrift of T<>-day, 2:je - ** Tbe <^inKien<X' is tbe tru'.- Jacob's laddi-r, set in t be heart 
of Uit'iii'ljviduaJ aiid n:»t:hiut[ unto b<«ven: and upon it tbe anm-ls of lelf-reproaxHi 
and wlfHipprf/vaJ a*«fnd and dfj!M.«nd.'* Tbis is of Cf.'Urse true if we confine our 
ibiiiJKbUi UfUn' luan'lator}' ekrnj"nt in r<frelation. Tb<'re is a burher knowledgeof God 
wbiclj if 1(1 v«'n only In irni<«. Jac</b'f- ja^lder 6ymboIiz«fS tbe Christ who publishes not 
only Che if««r|M 1 but tlK.' biw, and not only tbe law but tbe gr^peL Dewey, Psycbolo^x* 
M4 — "0>iuBi-)«-n<« is Intuitivi', not In tbe tense tbat it enunciates universal laws and 
prim 'ii>it», tur it 1m y^ down no laws. Ojnsc*ienr.« is a name for tbe experience of 
pi-f >'/iiaii(y f btti any in\(.'n aet is in harmony or in discord with a truly realized person- 
aiit>." lU-tMut*; <ilM.«]icn<.% to tbe dJctatr« of oonscienoe is always relatively riirbt, 
Kant i-ijijld My that **an erHnff* of^nseieDce is a cbimHErra." But because tbe law 
a/^:«-pii-«j iiy i-iiUHii'mt.* may Im; al^iJuteJy wrong*, conscience may in its decisiona 
irn-Htiy i-f r tioiu the truth. S. S. Times : ** :^ul before bis conversion was a oonscien- 
iluua wi'iiiir 'I'ht. His spirit and cbamcter was commendable, while bis conduct was 
r>'pii-h*ij!>i I •]<•." Wi'pnfcr t'inay that .Saul's zeal for tbe law waa a zeal to make tbe law 
iuljHTv lent t«i biij (fV n pri«!e and h')n«ir. 

lioiiuv llu»hni-ii HHid that the fliM n^'iuirement of a preat ministry is a great ccm- 
t*'U lio-. lie ilu\ nttt mean thi* punitiv«-, Inhltiitory ftinscionce merely, but rather the 
AimMtM-riug, tt^•*u^UJ|r. ln«pinnir f-<>nM.*ii'n(x% that Mfs at once the gntiX things to be 
diiUi*, and iijif\i*tf towanl tlif'm with a shuut and a s«ing. Tbis unbiasi'd and pure con- 
at'ifn*^* ia lnsc|H«raljUf from the fyense fif its relation to God and to God*8 bolinosi. 
Hhali«-^|N-art•, lliury VI, 'M I'urt, :i:'2- " Wtuit stronger breastplate than a heart 
uutainted ? ThrifT' if hf armi'd that hath his quarrel just ; And be but naked, though 
l<M-kc«l up in SI It J, Whiwf (tHistk'ni^* with injustice is corrupted.'* Huxley, in bis leo- 
turuat ilifnrd In IKCI, ailmltiiand even Insisti^ that ethical practice must be and should 
bttiuuppositiou t^i evolution ; that the methods of evolution do not account for ethical 
bli etbioal prognsas. Morality is not a product of tbe same methods by which 



THE MOBAL NATURE OF MAN. 503 

lower orders have advanced in perfection of orffanization, namely, by the BtmR^rle for 
existence and survival of the fittest. Human profirress is moral, is in freedom, is under 
the law of love, is different in kind from physical evolution. James Russell I/) well : ** In 
vain we call old notions* fudge. And bend our conscienoe to our dealinfir : The ten com- 
mandments will not budge, And stealing will continue stealing.*' 

U. T. Smith, Man*s Knowledge of Man and of Qod, 161— ** Conscienoe lives in human 
nature like a rightful king, whose claim can never be forgotten by his people, even 
though they dethrone and misuse him, and whose presence on the seat of Judgment 
can alone make the nation to be at peace with itself." Seth, Ethical Principles, 4Si— 
*" The Kantian theory of autonomy does not toll the whole story of the moral life. Its 
unyielding Ought, its categorical Imperative, issues not merely from the depths of 
our own nature, but from the heart of the universe itself. We are self-legislative ; 
but we re^nact the law already enacted by God ; we recognize, rather than constitute, 
the law of our own being. The moral law is an echo, within our own souls, of the 
voice of the Eternal, 'whote offlipring we an' (Adii7:Z8V* 

Schenkel, Christllche Dogmatik, 1 : 185-155— " The oonsoienoe is the organ by which 
the human spirit finds Ood in itself and so becomes aware of itself in him. Only 
in conscience is man conscious of himself as eternal, as distinct from God, yet as nor- 
mally bound to be determined wholly by God. When we subject ourselves wholly 
to God, conscience gives us peace. When we surrender to the world the allegiance 
due only to God, conscience brings remorse. In this latter case we become aware 
that while God is in us, we are no longer in Qod, Religion is exchanged for ethics, 
the relation of communion for the relation of separation. In conscience alone man 
distinguishes himself absolutely from the brute. Man does not make conscience, but 
conscience makes man. Conscienoe feels every separation from God as an injury to 
self. Faith is the relating of the self-consciousness to the God-consciousness, the 
becoming sure of our own personality, in the absolute personality of God. Only in 
faith does conscience come to itself. But by sin this faith-consciousness maybe 
turned into law-consciousness. Faith affirms God in us ; Law affirms God outside of 
us.** Schenkel differs from Schleiermacher in holding that religion is not feeling but 
conscience, and that it is not a sense of dependence on the world, but a sense of depend- 
ence on God. Conscience recognizes a God distinct from the universe, a moral God, 
and so makes an unmoral religion impossible. 

Hopkins, Outline Study of Man, 283-285, Moral Science, 49, Law of Love, 41 — '' Con- 
science is the moral consciousness of man in view of his own actions as related to moral 
law. It is a double knowledge of self and of the law. Conscience is not the whole of 
the moral nature. It presupposes the moral reason, which recognizes the moral law 
and aflarms its universal obligation for all moral beings. It is the ofllce of conscience 
to bring man into personal relation to this law. It sets up a tribunal within him by 
which his own actions are Judged. Not conscienoe, but the moral reason. Judges of the 
conduct of others. This last is scienee, but not conscience" 

Peabody, Moral Philos., 41-4X)— ** Conscience not a souroe, but a means, of knowledge. 
Analogous to consciousness. A Judicial faculty. Judges according to the law before 
it. Verdict ( verum dictum ) always relatively right, although, by the absolute standard 
of right, it may be wrong. Like all perceptive faculties, educated by use ( not by 
increase of knowledge only, for man may act worse, the more knowledge he has). For 
absolutely right decisions, conscience is dependent upon knowledge. To recognize 
conscience as IcgUiaUyr ( as well as Judge ), is to fall to recognize any objective standard 
of right." The Two Consciences, 48, 47 — '* Conscience the Law, and Conscienoe the Wit- 
ness. The latter is the true and proper Conscience.*' 

H. B. Smith, System of Christ. Theology, 178-191 — " The unity of conscienoe is not In 
its being one faculty or in its performing one function, but in its having one olj^ect, its 
relation to one idea, viz., right. . . . The term 'conscience ' no more designates a special 
faculty than the term * religion * does ( or than the *" sesthetic sense * ) The exist- 
ence of conscience proves a moral law above us ; it leads loerically to a Moral Governor ; 
• ... it Implies an essential distinction between right and wrong, an immutable 
morality ; . . . . yet needs to be enlightened ; . • • men may be oonsdentious in 
iniquity ; . . . conscience is not righteousness ; • . . this may only show the greatness 
of the depravity, having conscience, and yet ever disobeying it." 

On the New Testament passages with regard to conscience, see Hof mann, Lehre von 
dem Gewiasen, 30-38 ; Klihler, Das Gewissen, fS2S-2SQ. For the view that conscience is 
primarily the cognitive or intuitional power of the soul, see Calderwood, Moral Philos- 
ophy, 77 ; Alexander, Moral Science, 20 ; MoCosh, Div. Govt., 207-^12 ; Talbot, Bthioal 



50i AXTHBOPOLOGT, OB THE DOCTRISIB, OF MAX. 



ProleffOOMmi, in Bap. Quar^ Jul j, 1977:2^-2:4; Park, Dteoouna^ 90-96: WbcweO, 
ElecuenU of Mr/ralttj, 1 : 29»-mL On the whole sabiect of oooacieooe. seeSUnKl. 3lec». 
pfajirtci.i;»-i:0; Martinenn, Belwion and XateriaUnn, 45 - ** Tlie dismrerr cf duty to 
af diitifictJjr RrlatlTe to an oblectire BigfateooBses a* the p Ace yti on of f "^.nn to an 
ezu.Txialfpftoe''; alioTlPea.2:27-J0— ** WeftntjadseourKhrea: thenochen*';9L54. 
74.118— '*8ut^|ectiTemoraJaaiea*almiida*aQbJectiTvniathemati^ The beet brief 
treatment of the whole subject to that of E. G. Bobinaon, Principlei and Practice of 
MoraJitr.aS-TK. Seeatoo Warlaad^SCoiml 8cieoce,«; Harieai.C1iri0tlan EthJcB.45i,aO; 
H. H. Dar, Sdenoe of Ethka, 17; Janet, llieoiT of Morato. Si. 348; Kant. Metaphjiic 
of Ethka, g; ef. gc h wegler, Htot. PhUoaophy, a»; Haven, SCor. Fhilce., 41 ; Fiaircfaild, 
SCor, PhUos^TS; Gier»7« Clntotlan EUdGi, 71 ; Pawrant.DaiGewtogn; Wm-Scfamid, 



2. mw: 

A. Will defined. — Will is the booI's ixnrer to chooee between motiTes 
and to direct its sabeeqnent activity aooordini^ to the motiTe thus chosen, — 
in other words, the sool's power to choose both an end and the means to 
attain it The choice of an ultimate end we call immanent pref exenoe ; the 
cht Ace of means we oaU executive volition. 

In tfato definition we part company with Jonathan Edwards, Freedom of the Will, in 
WorkA, vol. 2. He regards the will as the soul's power to act according to motive, L e^ 
to act out its nature, but he denies the soul's power to chr>oee between motives, i. f^ to 
initiate a or^urse of action contrary to the motive which has been prt-viously dominant. 
Hence l>e to unable to explain how a holy being, like Satan or Adam, could ever falL 
If man has no fKiwer to change motives, to break with the past, to begin a new course 
of action, he lias no more freedom than the brute. The younger Edwards ( Works, 1 : 
483 ) shows what hto father's doctrine of the will implies, when he saj-s : **■ Beasts there- 
fore, accirding to the measure of their intelligence, are as free as men. Intelligence, 
and nrjt liberty, to the only thing wanting to constitute them moral agents.'* Fet Jona- 
than Edwards, determinist as he was, in hto sermon on Pressing into the Kingdom of 
God ( Works, 4 : 381 ), urges the use of means, and appeato to the sinner as if he had the 
power of choosing between the mcjtives of self and of G(jd. He was unconsciously 
making a powerful apr«eal to the will, and the human will responded in prolonged 
and mighty efforts ; see Allen, Jonathan Edwards, 100. 

For references, and additional statements with regard to the will and its freedom, sec 
chapter on Decrees, pages 361, 383, and article by A. H. Strong, in Baptist Beview, 1883 : 
219-242, and reprinted In Philosophy and Religion, lli-138. In the remarks upon the 
Decre(«, we have intimated our rejection of the Arminian liberty of indifference, or 
the df>ctrine that the will can act without motive. See thto doctrine advocated in 
Poabody, Moral Philosophy, 1-0. But we atoo reject the theory of determinism pro- 
poundfjd by Jonathan Edwards ( Freedom of the Will, in Works, voL 2), which, as we 
have bcffore remarked, identifies sensibility with the will, regards affections as the effi- 
cient causes of volitions, and speaks of the connection between motive and action as a 
necessary one. Hazard, Man a Creative First Gause, and The Will, 407—*' Edwards 
gives to the controlling cause of volition in the past the name of motive. He treats 
the inclination as a motive, but he also makes inclination synonymous with choice and 
will, which would make will to be only the soul willing — and therefore the cause of 
its own act.*' For objections to the Arminian theory, see H. B. Smith, Review of 
Whodon, in Faith and Phflosopby, 850-300 ; McCosh, Divine Government, 263-318, csp. 
812 ; E. G. Robinson, Principles and Practice of Morality, 100-137 ; Shedd, Dogm. TheoL, 
2:115-147. 

James, Psychology, 1 : 130 — *' ConsciousnesB to primarily a selecting agency.** 2 : 303 
— ** Man possesses all the instincts of animals, and a great many more besides. Reason, 
per «e, can Inhibit no impulses ; the only thing that can neutralize an impulse to an 
impulse the other way. Beason may however make an inference which will excite 
the imagination to let loose the impulse the other way.** 540 — '* Ideal or moral action 
is action in the line of the greatest rostotance.*' 562 — *' Effort of attention to the essen- 
tial phenomenon of will." 667 — " The terminus of the psychological process is voli- 
tion ; the point to which the will to directly applied to alwa}/? an Idea.*' 668 — '* Though 
attention to the first thing in volition, express consent to the reality of what to 
attonded to to an additional and dtotinot phenomenon. We say not only : It to a real- 




THE MORAL NATURE OF MAN. 505 

Ity ; but we also say : * Let it be a reality/ " 671 — " Are the duration and intensity 
of this effort fixed functions of the object, or are they not? We answer, iVo, and so 
we maintain freedom of the will.*' 684 — ** The soul presents nothing, creates nothing, 
is at the mercy of material forces for all possibilities, and, by reinforcing one and 
checking others, it figures not as an epiphenometion, but as something from which the 
play gets moral support.** Alexander, Theories of the Will, 201-214, finds in Reid's 
Active Powers of the Human Mind the most adequate empirical defense of inde- 
termlnism. 

B. Will and other faculties. — ( a ) We accept the threefold division of 
hmnan faculties into intellect, sensibility, and wilL (b) Intellect is the 
Bonl knowing ; sensibility is the soul feeling ( desires, affections) ; will is 
the soul choosing (end or means). ( c ) In every act of the soul, all the 
faculties act. Knowing involves feeling and willing ; feeling involves 
knowing and willing ; willing involves knowing and feeling. ( d ) Logi- 
cally, each latter faculty involves the preceding action of the former ; the 
the soul must know before feeling ; must know and feel before willing. 
(<?) Tet since knowing and feeling are activities, neither of these is 
possible without willing. 

Socrates to TheaE^tetus : '' It would be a singular thing, my lad, if each of us was, as 
it were, a wooden horse, and within us were seated many separate senses. For mani- 
fc?etly these senses unite Into one nature, call it the soul or what you will. And it is 
with this central form, through the organs of sense, that we perceive sensible objects.** 
Dewey, Psychology, 21 — **^ Knowledge and feeling are partial aspects of the self, and 
hence more or less abstract, while will is complete, comprehending both aspects. . . . 
While the universal element is knowledge, the individual element is feeling, and the 
relation which connects them into one concrete content is will." 364— " There is con- 
flict of desires or motives. Deliberation is the comparison of desires ; choice is the 
decision in favor of one. This desire Is then the strongest because the whole force of the 
self is thrown into It." 411 — *' The man determines himself by setting up either good 
or evil as a motive to himself, and he sets up either, as he will have himself bo. There is 
no thought without will, for thought implies inhibition.** Ribot, Diseases of the Will, 
78, cites the case of Coleridge, and his lack of power to inhibit scattering and useless 
ideas ; 114 — ^^ Volition plunges its roots Into the profoundest depths of the individual, 
and beyond the individual, into the species and into all species.'* 

As God is not mere nature but originating force, so man is chiefly wilL Every other 
act of the soul has will as an element. Wundt : '' Jedes Dcnken ist eln WoUen.'* There 
is no perception, and there is no thought, without attention, and attention is an act of 
the will. Hegelians and absolute Idealists like Bradley, (see Mind, July, 1886), deny 
that attention is an active function of the self. They regard it as a necessary conse- 
quence of the more interesting character of preceding ideas. Thus all i>ower to alter 
character is denied to the agent. This is an exact reversal of the facts of conscious- 
ness, and it would leave no will in God or man. T. H. Green says that the self makes 
the motives by identifying Itself with one solicitation of desire rather than another, 
but that the self has no power of alt(*rnarive choice In thus identifying itself with one 
solicitation of desire rather than another; see Upton, Hibbert Lectures, 810. James 
Seth, Freedom of Ethical Postulate : ** The only hope of finding a place for real free 
will is in another than the Ilumlan, empirical or psychological account of the moral 
person or self. Hegel and Green bring will again under the law of necessity. But per- 
sonality is ultimate. Absolute uniformity is entirely unproved. We contend for a 
power of free and Incalculable initiation in the self, and this it is necessary to maintain 
in the interests of morality." Without will to attend to pertinent material and to reject 
the impertinent, we can have no science ; without will to select and combine the ele- 
ments of imagination, we can have no art ; without will to choose between evil and 
good, we can have no morcUity. ^If rlc, A. D. 900 : ** The verb * to will * has no impera- 
tive, for that the will must be always free.** 

C. Will and permanent states. — (a) Though every act of the soul 
involves the action of all the faculties, yet in any particular action one 
faculty may be more prominent than the others. So we speak of acts of 



506 ASTHROPOLOOTy OR THE DOCTRUrS OF MAK. 

intellect, of afiection, of wilL ( 6) This predomiiuuit action of any tOD^Le 
facnltj produces effects npon the other Realties associated with it. The 
action of will gives a direction to the intellect and to the affections, as well 
as a permanent bent to the will itself, (c ) Each facaltr, therefore, has its 
permanent states as well as its transient acts, and the will may originate 
these states. Hence we speak of volnntarr affections, and mar with eqnal 
projmety speak of volnntarj opinions. These permanent Tolnntary states 
we denominate character. 

I ** make up " m j min<L Ladd, Philosophy of Conduct, ISS — ^ I will the influential 
ideas, teeUngB and desires, rather than allow these ideas, feelings and desires to influence 
— not to saj, determine me." All men can say with Robert Browninc's Paracelsus : ** I 
have subdued my life to the one purpose Whereto I ordained it.** ** Sow an act, and 
you reap a habit ; sow a habit, and you reap a character ; sow a character, and you reap 
a destiny." Tito, in 0«or^ Eliot's Bomola, and 3farkheim in R. L. Stevenson's story 
of that name, are instances of the Rradual and almost imperceptible flxation in evil 
way8 which results from seeming-ly sUirht original decisions of the will ; see art. on Tito 
Mfflcma, by Julia H. Gulliver, in Xew World, Dec 1885 : 688— ^ Sin lies in the choice of 
thir Ideas that shall frequent the moral life, rather than of the actions that shall 
form the outward life. .... The pivotal point of the moral life is the intent involved 
In attention. .... Sin consists, not only in the motive, but in the makin«r of the 
motive." By every decision of the will in which we turn our thought either toward or 
away from an object of desire, we set nerve-tracts in operation, upon which thoug^ht 
may hereafter more or less easily traveL ** Nothing makes an inroad, without making- 
a rcjad." By slight efforts of attention to truth which we know ought to influence us, 
wemay "BAkeltraliatketoflrtakJgkvayfvaarGod" (Is. 40: 3), or render the soul a hard trodden 
ground impervious to " tk« wwd of th« kiagd«« •*( Mat 13 : 19 ). 

The word *' character " meant originally the mark of the engraver's tool upon the 
metal or the stone. It came then to signify the collective result of the engraver's work. 
The use of the word in morals implies that every thought and act is chiseling itself 
into the imperishable substance of the souL J. S. Mill : ** A character is a completely 
fashioned wllL" We may talk therefore of a "generic volition " (Dewey). There is 
a permanent bent of the will toward good or toward evil. Reputation is man's shadow, 
Sf»metlmcs longer, sometimes shorter, than himself. Character, on the other hand, is 
the man's true self — ** what a man is in the dark " ( Dwight L . Moody ). In this sense, 
** puriK)se is the autograph of mind." Duke of Wellington : *' Habit a second nature? 
Habit is ten times nature I " When Macbeth says : ** If 't were done when 't Is done. Then 
•t were well 't were done quickly," the trouble is that when 't is done, it is only begun. 
Robert Dale Owen gives us the fundamental principle of socialism in the maxim : ** A 
man's character is made for him, not by him.'* Hence he would change man's diet or 
his environment, as a means of forming man's character. But Jesus teaches that what 
deflles comes not from without but from within ( Hat 15 : 18 ). Because character is the 
result of will, the maxim of Heraclitus is true: ^Bot ai^pwvy doiVwc^ man's character 
is his destiny. On habit, see James, Psychology, 1 : 123-127. 

D. Will and motives. — (a ) The permanent states just mentioned, when 
they have been once determined, also influence the wilL Internal views and 
diHi)08itions, and not sunply external presentations, constitute the strength 
of motives. ( b ) These motives often conflict, and though the soul never 
acts without motive, it does notwithstanding choose between motives, and 
so determines the end toward which it will direct its activities. ( c ) 
Motives are not causes, which compel the will, but influences, which per- 
suade it The power of these motives, however, is proportioned to the 
strength of will which has entered into them and has made them what 
they are. 

** Incentives comes from the soul's self: the rest avail not.** The same wind may 
drive two ships in opposite directions, according as they set their sails. The same 
external presentation may result in Oeorge Washington's refusing, and Benedict 



THB MORAL KATURE OF MAN. 507 

Arnold's acoeptinfir« the bribe to betray his country. Richard Lovelace of Canterbury : 
** 8tone walls do not a prison make. Nor iron bars a ca^ ; Minds innocent and quiet take 
That for a hermitage." Jonathan Edwards made motives to be efficient causes, when 
they are only final causes. We must not Interpret motlvaas if it were locomotive. It 
is alwajTS a man's fault when he becomes a drunkard: drink never takes to a man; 
the man takes to drink. Men who deny demerit are ready enough io claim merit. 
They hold others responsible, if not themselves. Bowne : " Pure arbitrariness and pure 
necessity are alike incompatible with reason. There must l>e a law of reason in the 
mind with which volition cannot tamper, and there must also be the power to deter- 
mine ourselves accordingly." Bowne, Principles of Ethics, 135—** If necessity is a uni- 
versal thing, then the belief in freedom is also necessary. AU grant freedom of thought, 
so that it is only executive freedom that is denied." Bowne, Theory of Thought and 
Knowledge, 23&-244 — ** Every system of philosophy must invoke freedom for the 
solution of the problem of error, or make shipwreck of reason Itself. . . • Our faculties 
are made for truth, but they may be carelessly used, or wilfully misused, and thus error 

is born We need not only laws of thought, but self-control in accordance with 

them." 

The will, in choosing between motives, chooses with a motive, namely, the motive 
chosen. Fairbairn, Philos. Christian Religion, 76 — ** While motives may be necessary, 
they need not necessitate. The will selects motives ; motives do not select the will. 
Heredity and environment do not cancel freedom, they only condition it. Thought is 
transcendence as regards the phenomena of space ; will is transcendence as regards the 
phenomena of time ; this double transcendence involves the complete supernatural 
character of man." New World, 1892 : 132— ** It is not the character, but the self that 
has the character, to which the ultimate moral decision is due." William Ernest Henly, 
Poems, 119 — ** It matters not how strait the gate. How charged with punishments the 
scroll, I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul." 

Julius Mtiller, Doctrine of Sin, 2: 54 — *' A being is free, in so far as the inner centre of 
its life, from which it acts, is conditioned by self-determination. It is not enough that 
the deciding agent in an act be the man himself, his own nature, his distinctive 
character. In order to accountability, we must have more than this ; we must prove 
that this, his distinctive nature and character, springs from his own volition, and that 
it is itself the product of freedom in moral development. Matt 12:33— "nuke the tree good, and 
itf fruit good " — combines both. Acts depend upon nature ; but nature again depends upon 
the primary decisions of the will ( " make the tree good " ). Some determinism is not denied ; 
but it Is partly limited [by the will's remaining power of choice] and partly traced 
back to a former self-determining." Jbid., 67— ** If freedom be the self-determining of 
the will from that which is undetermined. Determinism is found wanting, — because in 
its most spiritual form, though it grants a self-determination of the will. It is only such 
a one as springs from a dcterminateness already present; and Indiflferentism is found 
wanting too, because while it maintains indetermlnateness as presupposed in every act 
of will, it does not recognize an actual self-determining on the part of the will, which, 

though it 1)0 a self-determining, yet begets dcterminateness of character We 

must, therefore, hold the doctrine of a conditional and limited freedom." 

E. Will and contrary choice. — ( a ) Though no act of pure will is pos- 
sible, the soul may put forth single volitions in a direction opposed to its 
previous ruling purpose, and thus far man has the power of a contrary 
choice ( Rom. 7 : 18 — ** to will is present with me " ). ( 6 ) But in so far as 
will has entered into and revealed itself in x>ermanent states of intellect 
and sensibility and in a settled bent of the will itself, man cannot by a 
single act reverse his moral state, and in this respect has not the power of 
a contrary choice. ( c ) In this latter case he can change his character only 
indirectly, by turning his attention to considerations fitted to awaken 
opx)osite dispositions, and by thus summoning up motives to an opposite 
course. 

There is no such thing as an act of pure will. Peters, Willenswelt, 128 — ** Jedes Wol- 
len ist ein Etwas woUen " — "all willing is a willing of some thing " ; it has an object 
which the mind conceives, which awakens the sensibility, and which the will strives 



50B AXTHBOPOLOGT, OB THE DOCTRISm OF HAS. 



to mHae. Otos? vftboat attenrntir^ M doc tme csosf. J. F. Watts: ^ We knov oau»- 
alltj ^^nJ J M we knov vilL. i. €^ vhere of t vo pooBUes it makes ooe acruaL A oaoae 
majr th trc fot e hare niiire than ooe certain ctfect. In the externa] material vorid we 
cannot find tamtt^ bat ooJ r amttt^denL T6 coeutrucc a theorr of the wiU from a stud j- 
of the material unirerae Ss to seek the Hvin^ amon^ the dead. Will Is power to tmakt m 
deciflioD* not to he made hj decirioos, to deci^le between motiTea. and not to be deter- 
mlned bj motf Tea. Who conduces the trial between motlTes? Onlj the self.** While 
we acree with the above in fta assertion of the certainty of natnie's sequenoea. we 
obfjeci to ita attribctloo eren to nature of an jrt himr Uke necesaity . Since nature's laws 
aie mcrelj the habits of God. God's canaalitr in nature Is the feffuhvity. not of neces- 
sity, but of freedom. We too are free at the strsti-ric points^ Automatic as most of 
our actim is, tliere are timea when we know onrfelrva to hare power of icittetire ; 
when we pot under our feet the motirea which have dominated us in the pest ; when 
we mark outnew courses of action. In these critical times we aaw.ii our manhood ; 
but for them we would be no better than the beasts that perish. ** Unkas above him^ 
adf he can erect hfmsplf. How mean a thinr is man ! " 



Win, with no remaining power of contrary choice, may be brute wHl, but it is not 
free wilL We therefore deny the relevancy of Herbert Spencer's arirument, in his 

DaUof EtliicB.andinbi8P8ycholon^,S:508—*'FBychical changes either conform to 
law, or tbey do not. If they do not conform to law, no science of Psychology I9 p(«. 
sflile. If they do conform to law, there cannot be any such thing as free wilL** spinoim 
alsrj, in bis Ethics, holds that the stone, as it falls, would if it were conscious think it- 
self free, and with as much Justice as man ; for it is doing that to which its constitutioa 
lea'ls it ; but no more can be said for him. Flsber, Nature and Method of Bevelation, 
ziil — " To try to collect the * data of ethics * when there is no recognition of m«n as a 
penponal agent, capable of frooly oripinating the oooduct and the states of will for 
whi<*h be is morally responsible, is labor lost.** Fisber. chapter on the Personality of 
G<id, in Grounds of Tbcistic and Christian Belief —** Self-determination, as the very 
term signifies, is attended with an irresistible conviction that the direction of the will Is 

self 'Imparted That the will is free, that is, not constrained by causes exterior, 

which is/af<iiC^m— and not a mere spontaneity, cimfincd to one path by a force acting 
frr>m within, which is d€tfrmini*m^\B immediately evident to every unsophisticated 
mind. We can initiate action by an efficiency which is neither irresistibly co::trolled 
by motives, nor determined, without any capacity of alternative action, by a proneneaa 
inherent in its nature. .... Motives have an f M.f u^ncr, but influ«ioe is not to be con- 
founded with caumU efficiency." 

Talbot, on WUl and Free Will, Bap. Rev., July, l«?8e— - Will is neither a power of 
unconditioned self-determination — which is not freedom, but an aimless, irrational, 
fatalistic power ; nor pure spontaneity— which excludes from will all law but its own ; 
but it is rather a power of originating action — a p«>wer which is limited however by 
inborn dispositions, by acquired habits and convictions, by ft^^Iingsand social relations.** 
Ernest KaWile, in Bev. Chr^ienne, Jan. 1S78 : 7 — " Our UlH?riy dt)e8 not consist in pro- 
ducing an action of which it is the only source. It consists in choosing between two 
prr.'I'xistent impulses. It is chnict, not creatioiu that is our ck>3tiny — a drop of water 
that can choose whether it will go into the Rhine or the Rhone. Gravity carries it 
down, — it chooses only its direction. Impulses do not come from the will, but from the 
sensibility ; but free will chooses between these impulses." Bowne, Metaphysics, 169 — 
*• Freedom is not a power of acting without, or apart from, motives, but simply a power 
of choosing an end or law, and of governing one's self awordingly." Porter, Moral 
Science, 77-111 — Will is ** not a power to chooee without motive." It "does not exclude 
motives to the contrary." Volition ** supposes two or more objects between which 
election is made. It is an act of preference, and to prefer implies that one motive is 
chr)sen to the exclusion of another. .... Totheconceptionand the act two motives at 
least are required." Lyall, Intellect, Emotions, and Moral Nature, 581, 5R2— •' The will 
follows reasons, inducements^ but it is not cau^ith It obeys or acts under inducement, 
but it doesso sovereignly. It exhibits the phenomena'of activity, in relation to the 
very motive it obeys. It obcjrs it, rather than another. It determines, in reference to 
it, that this is the very motive it will obey. There is undoubtedly this phenomenon 
exhibited : the will obeying— but elective, aq^ivo, in its obedience. If it be asked how 
this in T>^xwible— how the will can be under the influence of motive, and yet |>osBe88 an 
intfilU'Ctual activity — we reply that this is one of those ultimate phenomena which 
must be admitted, while they cannot be explained." 



THE MORAL NATURE OF MAN. 609 

F. Will and responsibility. — (a) By repeated acts of will put forth in 
a given moral direction, the afifections may become so confirmed in evil or 
in good as to make previously certain, though not necessary, the future 
good or evil action of the man. Thus, while the will is free, the man may 
be the "bondservant of sin'* (John 8 : 31-36) or the "servant of right- 
eousness" (Rom. 6:15-23; c/. Heb. 12-23 — "spirits of just men made 
perfect "). ( 6 ) Man is responsible for all effects of will, as well as for will 
itself ; for voluntary affections, as well as for voluntary acts ; for the 
intellectual views into which will has entered, as well as for the acts of will 
by which these views have been formed in the past or are maintained in 
the present ( 2 Pet 3 : 5 — " wilfully forget "). 

Ladd, Philosophy of Knowledge, 415— '* The self stands between the two laws of 
Nature and of Conscience, and, under perpetual limitations from both, exercises its 
choice. Thus it becomes more and more enslaved by the one, or more and more free 
by habitually choosing to follow the other. Our conception of causality according to 
the laws of nature, and our conception of the other causality of freedom, are both 
derived from one and the same experience of the self. There arises a seeming 
antinomy only when we hypostatize each severally and apart from the other." 
R. T. Smith, Man's Knowledge of Man and of God, 69—*' Making a ivUl is significant. 
Here the action of will is limited by conditions: the amount of the testator's property, 
the number of his relatives, the nature of the objects of bounty within his knowl- 
edge." 

Harris. Philos. Basis of Theism, 349-407 — ** Action without motives, or contrary to all 
motives, would be irrational action. Instead of being free, it would be like the con- 
vulsions of epilepsy. Motives = sensibilities. Motive is not cause ; does not determine ; 
is only influence. Yet determination is always made under the influence of motives. 
Uniformity of action is not to be explained by any law of uniform Influence of 
motives, but by character in the will. By its choice, will forms In itself a character ; by 
action in accoi'dauce with this choice, it confirms and develops the character. Choice 
modifies sensibilities, and so modifies motives. Volitional action expresses character, 
but also forms and modifies it. Man may change his choice ; yet intellect, sensibility, 
motive, habit, remain. Evil choice, having formed intellect and sensibility into accord 
with itself, must be a powerful hindrance to fundamental change by new and contrary 
choice ; and gives small ground to expect that man left to himself ever will make the 
change. After will has acquired character by choices, its determinations are not tran- 
sitions from complete indeterminateness or indifference, but are more or less expres- 
sions of character already formed. The theory that indifference is essential to freedom 
implies that will never acquires character ; that voluntary action is atomistic ; that 
every act is disintegrated from every other; that character, if acquired, would be 
incompatible with free^lom. Character is a choice, yet a choice which persists, which 
modifies sensibiliiy and intellect, and which infiuences subsequent determinations." 

My freedom then is freedom within limitations. Heredity and . environment, and 
above all the settled dispositions which are the product of past act« of will, render a 
large part of human action practically automatic. The deterministic theory is valid 
for perhaps nine-tenths of human activity. Mason, Faith of the Gospel, 118, 119— *• We 
naturally will with a bias toward evil. To act according to the perfection of nature 
would be true freedom. And this man has lost. He recognizes that he is not his true 
self. It is only with difficulty that he works toward his true self again. By the fall of 
Adam, the will, which before was conditioned but free, is now not only conditioned but 
enslaved. Nothing but the action of grace c»n free it." Tennyson, In Memoriam, 
Introduction: ** Our wills are ours, we know not how; Our wills are ours, to make 
them thine." Studying the action of the sinful will alone, one might conclude that 
there is no such thing as freedom. Christian ethics, in distinction from naturalistic 
ethics, reveals most clearly the degradation of our nature, at the same time that it 
discloses the remedy in Christ : '*If Uiarefors tha Son thaXl nutka joa free, 7a shall be free indeed " ( John 
8:36). 

Mind, Oct. 1882 : 567 — '* Kant seems to be in quest of the phantasmal freedom which 
is supposed to consist in the absence of determination by motives. The error of the 
Vterminists from which this idea is the recoil, involves an equal abstraction of the 



510 ANTHROPOLOOT^ OR THE DOCTRINE OF MAK. 

man from his thoughts, and intorpn>ts the relation between the two as an instanoe of 
the mechanical causality which exists between two thinirs in nature. The point to be 
KTasped in the controversy is that a man and his motives are one, and that consequently 
he is in every instance self-determined. .... Indeterminism is tenable only If an ego 
can be found which is not an ego already determinate ; but such an ego, though it may 
be logically distinguished and verbally expressed, is not a factor in psychology." Mor- 
ell. Mental Philosophy, 390— ** Motives determine the will, and »> for the will is not 
free ; but the man governs the motives, allowing them a less or a greater power of 
influencing his life, and 90 far the man is a free agent.** Santayana: **A freeman, 
because he is free, may make himself a slave ; but once a slave, because he is a slave, 
he cannot make himself free.** Sidgwick, Method of Ethics, 51, 65— ** This almost over- 
whelming cumulative proof [of necessity] seems, however, more than balanced by a 
single argument on the other side : the immediate aflQrmation of consciousness in the 
moment of deliberate volition. It is impossible for me to think, at each moment, that 
my volition is completely determined by my formed character and the motives acting 
upon it. The opposite conviction is so strong as to be absolutely unshaken by the 
evidence brought against it. I cannot believe it to be illusory.** 

G. Inferences from this view of the wilL — ( a ) We can be responsible 
for the voluntary evil affections with which we are born, and for the will's 
inherited preference of selfishness, only npon the hypothesis that we 
originated these states of the affections and will, or had a part in originat- 
ing them. Scripture furnishes this explanation, in its doctrine of Original 
Sin, or the doctrine of a common apostasy of the race in its first father, 
and our derivation of a corrupted nature by natural generation from him. 
( 6 ) While tliere remains to man, even in his present condition, a natural 
power of will by which he may put forth transient volitions externally 
conformed to the divine law and so may to a limited extent modify his 
character, it still remains true tliat the sinful bent of his affections is not 
directly under his control ; and this bent constitutes a motive to evil so 
couHtont, inveterate, and powerful, that it actually influences every member 
of the race to reaffirm his evil choice, and renders necessary a special 
working of God's Spirit upon his heart to ensure his salvation. Henoe the 
Scripture doctrine of Regeneration. 

There is such a thing as ^* psychical automatism ** ( Ladd, Phllos. Mind, 160 ). Mother : 
"Oscar, why can't you be good ? " •* Mamma, it makes me so tired I '* The wayward 
four-year-old is a tsqpe of universal humanity. Men are born morally tired, though 
they have energy enough of other sorts. The man who sins may lose all freedom, so 
that his soul becomes a seething mass of eructant evil. T. C. Chamberlain : *' Condi- 
tions may make choices run rigidly in one direction and give as fixed uniformity as in 
physical phenomena. Put before a million typical Americans the choice between a 
quarter and a dime, and rigid uniformity of results can be safely predicted.*' Tet Dr. 
Chamberlain not only grants but claims liberty of choice. Romanes, Mind and Motion, 
155-160— '* Though volitions are largely determined by other and external causes, it 
does not follow that they are determined necetsarttyy and this makes all the difference 
between the theories of will as bond or free. Their intrinsio character as first causes 
protects them from being coerced by these causes and therefore from becoming only 
the mere effects of them. The condition to the effective operation of a tnotlw— as 
distinguished from a mot<»r— is the acquiescence of the first caune upon whom that 
motive is operating.** Fichte : " If any one adopting the dogma of necessity should 
remain virtuous, we must set^k the cause of his goodness elsewhere than in the innoc- 
uousness of his doctrine. Upon the supposition of free will alone can duty, virtue, 
and morality have any existence.** Lessing: ** Kein Mensch muss mtlssen.*' Delitzsoh : 
•* Der Mensch, wle er Jetzt ist, ist wahlf rei, aber nicht machtf rei." 

Kant regarded freedom as an exception to the law of natural causality. But this 
freedom is not phenomenal but noumenal, for causality is not a category of noumena. 
From this freedom we get our whole idea of personality, for personality is freedom of 
the whole soul from the mechanism of nature. Kant treated soomfully the determln- 




THE MORAL NATURE OF MAN. 611 

ism of Leibnitz. He said it was the freedom of a turnspit, which when onoe wound 
up directed its own movements, i. c, was merely automatic. Compaitj with this the 
view of Baldwin, Psychologry. Peeling and Will, 373—'* Free choice is a synthesis, the 
outcome of which is in every case conditioned upon its elements, but in no case 
caused by them. A logical inference is conditioned upon its premises, but It is not 
caused by them. Both inference and choice express the nature of the conscious 
principle and the unique method of its life. . . . The motives do not grow into voli- 
tions, nor does the volition stand apart from the motives. The motives are partial 

expressions, the volition is a total expression, of the same existence Freedom is 

the expression of one's self conditioned by past choices and present environment.*' 
Shakespeare, Hamlet, 3 : 4—** lief rain to-night, And that shall lend a kind of easiness 
To the next abstinence : the next more easy : For use can almost change the stamp of 
nature. And either curb the devil or throw him out With wondrous potency." 8:2— 
"Purpose Is but the slave to memory; Of violent birth but poor validity." 4:7— 
** That we would do. We should do when we would ; for this vxmld changes And hath 
abatements and delays as many As there are tongues, are hands, are accidents." 
Ooethe : ** Von der Gewalt die alle Wesen bindet, Bef reit der Mensoh sioh der sich 
Uberwindet." 

Scotus Novantious (Prof. Laurie of Edinburgh), Ethica, 287 — "The chief good is 
fulness of life achieved through law by the action of will as reason on sensibility. . . • 
Immorality is the letting loose of feeling, in opposition to the idea and the law in it; 

it is individuality in opposition to personality In immorality, will is defeated, 

the personality overcome, and the subject volitionizes just as a dog volitionizes. The 
subject takes possession of the personality and uses it for its natural desires." Maudsley, 
Physiology of Mind, 456, quotes Ribot, Diseases of the Will, 133—" WIU is not the 
cause of anything. It is like the verdict of a Jury, which is an effect, without being a 
cause. It is the highest force which luiture has yet developed — the last consummate 
blossom of all her marvellous works." Yet Maudsley argues that the mind itself has 
power to prevent insanity. This implies that there is an owner of the instrument 
endowed with power and responsibility to keep it in order. Man can do much, but 
God can do more. 

H, Special objections to the deterministic theory of the wiU. — Deter- 
minism holds that man's actions are uniformly determined by motives 
acting upon his character, and that he has no power to change these 
motives or to act contrary to them. This denial that the will is free has 
serious and pernicious consequences in theology. On the one hand, it 
weakens even if it does not destroy man's conviction with regard to respon- 
sibility, sin, guilt and retribution, and so obscures the need of atonement ; 
on the other hand, it weakens if it does not destroy man's faith in his own 
power as well as in God's power of initiating action, and so obscures the 
possibility of atonement. 

Determinism is exemplified in Omar Khdyydm's Rubdiyat : " With earth's first day 
they did the last man knead. And there of the last harvest sowed the seed; And 
the first morning of creation wrote What the last dawn of reckoning shall read." 
William James, Will to Believe, 145-183, shows that determinism involves pessimism or 
subjectivism— good and evil are merely means of increasing knowledge. The result 
of subjectivism is in theology antinomianism ; in literature romanticism ; in practical 
life sensuality or sensualism, as in Rousseau, Renan and Zola. Hutton, review of 
Clifford in Contemp. Thoughts and Thinkers, 1:254 — "The determinist aays there 
would bo no moral quality in actions that did not express previous tendency, i. e., a 
man is responsible only for what he cannot help doing. No effort against the grvdn 
will be made by him who believes that his interior mechanism settles for him whether 
he shall make it or no." Royce, World and Individual, 2 : 843—** Your unique voices in 
the divine symphony are no more the voices of moral agents than are the stones of a 
mosaic." The French monarch announced that all his subjects should be free to choose 
their own religion, but he added that nobody should choose a different religion from 
the king's. ** Johnny, did you give your little sister the choice between those two 
apples ? " ** Yes, Mamma ; I told her she could have the little one or none, and she 
ohoee the little one." Hobson's choice was always the choice of the last horse in the 



512 AXTHBOPOLOGT, OR THE DOCTRIXE OF MAST. 

row. The barteoder with rerolver In hand met mU crittdsiiis npoo the quality of hii 
liquor with the remark : *- You 'li driiilc that whisky, and you 'U like it too ! '* 

Ijalfour, Foundations of Relief, 2S— " There must be implicitly present to primitive 
ipan the sense of frii-«lom. «ince his ff.-ti<hisiii largely consists in attributing to inanl- 
mate ob>.*cts the spontaneity which he finds in himself.** Freedom does not oontimdict 
conservation of encr;j:y. Pror< seor Lodfre, in Nature, March A, 191 — "Altboogli 
expenditure of energy is need*jd to increase the speed of matter, none is needed to alter 
Its direction. • • . The rails that guide a train do not propel it, nor do they retard it; 
they have no essential effr-ct upon its energy but a guiding effect.** J. J. Murphy, Nat. 
Selection and Spir. Freedom, ]n>-S08— ** Will does not create force but directs it. A 
Tery small force Is able to guide the action of a great one, as in the steering of m 
modem steamship.** James Seth, in Philos. Rev., 8 : 285, 886— ** As life is not energy 
but a determiner of the paths of energy, so the will is a cause, in the sense that it odd- 
trols and directs the channels which activity shall take.** See also James Seth, Ethical 
Principlt-fl, 8i»-3B8, and Freedom as Ethical PostulaUs 9 — **Tbe philosophical proof of 
f rr,f:^om must be the demonstration of the inadequacy of the categories of sdenoe : Its 
phil^jsophical disproof must be the demonstration of the adequacy of such sdentillo 
cat«.*gori4.'S.'* Sbadworth Hodgson : " Either liberty is true, and then the categories are 
insufficient, or the categories are sulBcient, and then liberty is a delusion.** Wagner Is 
the compo«er of determinism; there is no freedom or guilt; action is the result of 
influence and environment ; a mysterious fate rules alL Life : '* The views upon hered- 
ity or scientists remind one That, shape one*s conduct as one ma}-, One*8 future is 
liehind one." 

We trae(; willing in God back, not to motives and antecedents, but to his infinite 
p(;r>onallty. If man is made in God's image, why we may not trace man's willing also 
back, not to motives and antecedents, but to his finite personality ? We speak of 
Goal's flat, but we may 8|H>ak of man's fiat also. Napoleon : ^ There shall be no Al|)s I " 
Dutch William III: ** I may fall, but shall fight every ditch, and die in the last one ! ** 
When God energizes the will, it becomes indomitable. Ail. 4 : 13 — * I cut dt til tUags is kia 
tkit sxnofflhMOUk int. " Dr. E. G. Robinson was theoretically a detcrminist, and wrongly 
held that the highest conceivable freedom is to act out one*s own nature. He regarded 
the will OS only the nat ure in movement. Will is self -determining, not in the sense that 
will determines the self, but in the sense that self determines the wilL The will cannot 
be comp4.'llerl, ft jr unless self-determined it is no longer wilL Observation, history and 
logic, la; thought, lead to necessitarianism. But consciousness, he conceded, testifies 
tt) freerlom. Consciousness must be trusted, though we oannot reconcile the two. 
The will is as great a mystery as is the doctrine of the Trinity. Single volitions, he says, 
are often directly in the face of the current of a man*s life. Tet he held that we have 
DO consciousness of the i>ower of a contrary choice. Consciousness can testify only to 
what springs out of the moral nature, not to the moral nature itself. 

Lotze, Rellgionsphilosophic, si-ctiou 61 —''An indeterminate choice is of course inoom- 
prrrhensible and inexplicable, for If it were comprehensible and explicable by the 
human intellect, if, that is, it could bo seen to follow necessarily from the prei'xisting 
cr>nditions, it from the nature of the case could not be a morally free choice at aU. . • • 
Hut we cannot comprehend any more how the mind can move the muscles, nor how a 
moving stone can set another stone in motion, nor bow the Absolute calls into exist- 
ence; our individual selves.^' Upton, Hibbert LcH.>tures, 306-337, gives an able expose of 
the det'.'rministic fallacies. He cites Martincau and Balfour in England, Renou\ier and 
Fonsi-grivc in France, Edward Z4'llcr, Kuno Fischer and Saarschmidt in Germany, and 
WJlium James in America, as recent advocates of free will. 

Martineau, Study, 2 : 2:^ — '* Is there not a Causal Self, over and above the Caused 
Self, or rather the Caused State and contents of the self left as a deposit from previous 
lj<;havior? Absolute idealism, like Green's, will not rc*cofrtiizo the existence of this 
Causal Self'* ; Study of Relii^ion, 2 : 19V321, and especially 240— *' Where two or more 
rival preconceptions enter the field together, they cannot compare themselves inter se : 
they ni^.'d and meet a sui^erior : it rests with the mind itself to decide. The decisioii 
will not he uiuwAived^ for it will have its reasons. It will not be unconformable to the 
chamct<;ristics of the mind, for it will express its preferences. But none the less is it 
issued by a free cause that elects among the coiiditioiis, and is not elected by them.** 
241 — '' So far frttm admitting that different effects oannot come from the same cause. 
I even venture on the paradox that nothing is a proper cause which is limited to one 
effect.'* 8*-- " Freerlom, in the sense of option, and will, as the jwwer of deciding an 
alternative, hare no place in the doctrines of the German schools.** 811 — '' The whole 




THE MORAL KATURB OP MAN. 613 

Illusion of Necessity springs from the attempt to fling out, for contemplation in the 
field of Nature, the creative new beffinnings centered in personal subjects that tran- 
scend it.** 

See also H. B. Smith, System of Christ TheoL, 23&-261 ; Hansel, Proleg. Log., 119-155, 
270-278, and Metaphysics, 366 ; Gregory, Christian Ethics, 60 ; Abp. Manning, in Contem. 
Boy., Jan. 1871 : 468 ; Ward, Philos. of Theism, 1 : 287-86S3 ; 2 : 1-79, 274-849 ; Bp. Temple, 
Bampton Lect., 1884 : 69-96 ; Row, Man not a Machine, in Present Day Tracts, 5 : no. 80 ; 
Richards, Lectiu^ on Theology, 97-158; SoUy, The Will, 167-2(16; William James, The 
Dilemma of Determinism, in Unitarian Review, Sept. 1884, and in The Will to Believe, 
145-183; T. H. Green, Prolegomena to Ethics, 90-150; Upton, Hlbbert Lectures, 810; 
Bradley, in Mind, July, 1886 ; Bradford, Heredity and Christian Problems, 70-101 ; llling- 
worth, Divine Immanence, 229-254 ; Ladd, Philos. of Conduct, 138-188. For Lotze*s view 
of the Will, see his Philos. of BeliglOD, 05-106^ and his Fraotioal Philosophy, 85-«a 



88 



/! 



CHAPTER II. 

THE ORIGINAL STATE OF MAN. 

In determming miui's original state, we are wholly dependent upon 
Scriptore. This represents human nature as coming from Ckxi's hand, 
and therefore ** very good " ( Gen. 1 : 31 ). It moreover draws a parallel 
between man's first state and that of his restoration ( GoL 8 : 10 ; Eph. 4 : 
24). In interpreting these passages, however, we are to remember the 
twofold danger, on the one hand of putting man so high that no progress 
is oonceivable, on the other hand of putting him so low that he could not 
falL We shall the more easily avoid these dangers by distinguishing 
between the essentials and the incidents of man's original state. 

6«n.l:81 — ''liidGodnvmiTtUiig that hehidiittdt,ud,bahold,itwu ?erjgMd"; CoL 3 : 10 — " tie nav 
aiaB,tbAk is being rauvadiuitokiiovI«ig«afUrth«iiiug« of kirn tbak erutod Ub " ; lpk.4:24 — "tkeanrBUi tkal 
•fkor God hath bMn onited in righteouB«n and koUoMt of truth." 

Philippi, Glaubenslchre, 2 : 887-989 — *' The ori^nal state must be (1) a contrast to 
sin ; ( 2 ) a parallel to the state of restoration. Diflicultics in the way of understanding 
it : ( 1 ) What lives in regeneration is something foreign to our present nature ( "it is no 
loBgtr I that Ut*. Imt Christ liTetli in nw '* — OaL 2 : 20 ) ; but the original state was something nativc- 
( 2 ) It was a state of childhood. We cannot fully enter Into childhood, though we see 
it about us, and have ourselves been through it. The original state is jret more difficult 
to reproduce to reason. ( 3 ) Man*s external circumstances and his organization have 
suffered great changes, so that the present is no sign of the past. We must recur to the 
Scriptures, therefore, as well-nigh our only guide.'* John Ca<rd, Fund. Ideas of Chris- 
tianity, 1 : 164-105, points out that ideal perfection is to l)c looked for, not at the outset, 
but at the final stage of the spiritual life. If man were wholly finite, he would not know 
his finitude. 

Lord Bacon : ** The sparkle of the purity of man^s first estate.** Calvin : ** It was 
monstrous impiety that a son of the earth should not be satisfied with being made after 
the similitude of Ood, unless he could also be equal with him." Pi-of . Hustings : '* The 
truly natural is not the real, but the ideaL Made in the image of God — between that 
beginning and the end stands Ood made In the image of man.*' On the general sub- 
ject of man*s original stat«, see Z^kler, 8:28&-290; Thomasiius, Christ! Person und 
Werk, 1 : 215-243 : Ebrard, Dogmatik, 1 : 267-276 ; Van Oosterzee, Dogmatics, 874-876 ; 
Hodge, Syst. ThooL, 2 : »M16. 

L EsSBNTIAIiS OF Man's OBIQINAIi StATB. 

Theso are snmmed np in the phrase ** the image of God." In God's 
image man is said to have been created ( Gen. 1 : 26, 27 ). In what did 
this image of God consist ? We reply that it consisted in 1. Natural like- 
ness to God, or personality ; 2. Moral likeness to God, or holiness. 

6«L 1 : 26, 27— "And God said, Latu maka nun in oor isuige, aftor our likeness. .... ind God cnatad mas ia 
Us own imager in th« iua^ of God ersated ha him." It is of great importance to distinguish clearly 
betw(Min the two elements embraced in this image of (iod, the naturul and the moraL 
Uy virtue of the first, man po88CssfKl certain faculties ( Intel lect, affection, will); by 
virtue of the second, he had right Umlcncien ( bent, proclivity, disposition ). By virtue 
of the first, he was invostc'd with certain p(»ccrs;hy virtue of the stHJond, a certain 
(UirctUm was imparte<i to thi^se powers. As created in the natural image of God, man 
hud a moral nature ; iw creait<nl In the moral image of (Jod, man had a holy character , 
The llrat gave him mitural ability t the second gave him moral ability. The Oreek 

614 




ESSENTIALS OF MAN's ORIGINAL STATE. 515 

Fathers emphasized the first element, or personality ; the Latin Fathers emphasiaed 
the second element, or hoUnens, See Orr, Ood*s Image In Man. 

As the Logos, or divine Reason, Christ Jesus, dwells in humanity and constitutes the 
principle of its being, humanity shares with Christ in the Image of Ood. That image 
is never wholly lost. It is completely restored in sinners when the Spirit of Christ gains 
control of their wills and they merge their life in his. To those who accused Jesud of 
blasphemy, he replied by quoting the words of Pnlm 82:6 — "I Mid, T«ar«^"— words 
spoken of imperfect earthly rulers. Thus, in JbkniO : 34-30^ Jesus, who constitutes the 
very essence of humanity, justifies his own claim to divinity by showing that even men 
who represent God are also in a minor sense *'pftrtak«nof th« diriiM lutan" (2 Pet. 1 : 4). Hence 
the many legends, in heathen religions, of the divine descent of man. 1 Oor. 11 : 8 — "the h«id 
of •Toj ffliA if Christ" In every man, even the most degraded, there is an image of God to 
be brought out, as Michael Angelo saw the angel in the rough block of marble. This 
natural worth does not imply wftrthinem; it implies only capacity for redemption* 
''The abysmal dapths of personality,** which Tennyson speaks of, are sounded, as man 
goes down In thought successively from individual sins to sin of the heart and to raoe- 
sln. But *' the deeper depth is out of reach To all, O God, but thee.** From this deeper 
depth, where man is rooted and grounded in God, rise aspirations for a better life. 
These are not due to the man himself, but to Christ, the immanent God, who ever 
works within him. Fanny J. Crosby : *' Rescue the perishing. Care for the dying. • . • 
Down in the human heart, crushed by the tempter. Feelings lie buried that grace can 
restore ; Touched by a loving heart, wakened by kindness. Chords that were broken 
will vibrate once more.*' 

1. Natural likeness to Ood^ or personality, 

Man was created a personal being, and was by this personalitj distan- 
goished from the brute. By personality we mean the twofold power to 
know self as related to the world and to Qod, and to determine self in 
view of moral ends. By virtue of this personality, man could at his crea- 
tion choose which of the objects of his knowledge — self, the world, or God 
— should be the norm and centre of his development. This natural like- 
ness to God is inalienable, and as constituting a capacity for redemption 
gives value to the life even of the unregenerate ( Gen* 9 : 6 ; 1 Oor. 11:7; 
James 8:9). 

For definitions of personality, see notes on the Anthropological Argument, page 8B ; 
on Pantheism, pages 104, 106; on the Attributes, pages 2&2-J354; and on the Person of 
Christ, in Part VI. Here we may content ourselves with the formula : Personality «« 
self-consciousness + self-determination. SefZ-consciousness and 8el/-determlnatlon, as 
distinguished from the consciousness and determination of the brute, involve all the 
higher mental and moral powers which constitute us men. Conscience is but a mode 
of their activity. Notice that the term * image ' does not, in man, imply perfect repre- 
sentation. Only Christ is the " Tuy irnag* " of God ( leb. 1 : 3 ), the " image of the isTiiible God *' 
(Col 1 : 15 — on which see Lightfoot ). Christ is the image of God al>solutely and arche- 
typally ; man, only relatively and derivatively. Dut notice also that, since God is Spirit, 
man made in God's image cannot be a material thing. By virtue of his possession of 
this first element of the image of God, namely, personality, materialism is excluded. 

This first element of the divine image man can never lose until he ceases to be nuuu 
Even insanity can only obscure this natural image,— it cannot destroy it. St. Bernard 
well said that it could not be burned out, even in hell. The lost piece of money (Uke 
15 : 8 ) still bore the image and superscription of the king, even though it did not know 
it, and did not even know that it was lost. Human nature is therefore to be reverenced, 
and he who destroys human life is to be put to death : Gen. 9 : 6 — " lor in the image of God made 
he man " ; i Cor. 11 : 7 — " a man indeed ooght not to hATo hif head relied, furuunnoh as he is the image and gkny of 
God"; James3:9 — even men whom we curse "are made after the likeness of God"; cf. P8.8:5— "thon 
hast made him bat litUe lower than God " ; 1 Pet 2 : 17 — " Honor all men." In the being of every man are 
continents which no Columbus has ever yet discovered, depths of possible joy or sorrow 
which no plummet has ever yet sounded. A whole heaven, a whole hell, may lie within 
the compass of his single soul. If we could see the meanest real Christian as he will 
be in the great hereafter, we should bow before him as John bowed before the angel 
in the Apocalypse, for we should not be able to distinguish him from God (He?. S : S; 9> 



biff ASTHEOPOLOGT, OE THE IfOCT^lSE OF MJLX. 

£ir WiiLdua HunllT'-xi : " Os euth iIkk- is nrrAhhig ^nsz but nm : Is man then ii 
jyAhJTjg irr>*t t'Ut XLix^d." W«r w]«T^ tixif ^i'.'^uzs ocijr if ^siixMi " cm be unlerrtood 
U^ ii^AxjAib rmz'.'t Uifjrmi \^rmmi% Xfjts*xbAS^ vtih tbe rir^ directjon of tboae powers^ 
ehiUK«|A«nE:,IUuik^S:2— ~WfaatmpiH«rOf vorkiissan: bov xioUe ia reasoo ! bow 
InhuiUz in tvMliT • ^ form maA mor:iur bov ^x;<v^s and adminbie ! in action bov like 
an aiur^J ! in aM>r«rfaeDsi<'>o bov IDce a pr>i : ** Pascal : " Man ia greater tban tlie nni- 
r<rrKr; tb«^ uniTfTae maj crush him, but it dwa noC know that it cniriKS him." 
WbitoOi Ci'yria P^trt M— ^God if n^jt ocJj tbe Girer but the Sharer of mj* life. Mj 
natural povr r« are that part of God's pover which ia IcMlged with n»e in truai to keep 
aiwl uwr." Man can Ur an iwirum^ntt of God. without bein^ an agtnt of God. ** Bach 
man has his lA^^ und va.ue as a reflection of God and of Christ. like a letter In a 
worri, or a wyrd in a sMitienoe, be gets his meaning from his context ; but the aeotenoe 
Is m'^ariinjrk'ai wftlK>ut him ; rays from the whole nnirene oonrerge in him.** John 
U<^yw(''i- Urioir Temple shows the grcatneas of human nature in its first constmctioo 
and evf'n in its ruin. OnJ j a noble ^hip could make so great a wreck. Aristotle, Prol^ 
iem, v-c. '^i—** Xo ezoelk-nt soul is exempt from a mixture of madxiesB."* Seneca, De 
Tran^iuUlitate Animi, 15— ** There is no great genius without a tincture of madneaa.** 

Kaot : ** T^j act as to treat bumanitj. whether in thine own perron or in that of any 
otb«;r. In exexy case as an cwl, and never as a m^aru onlj." If there is a dirine element 
in tsVfiTj man, then we have no rlg^bt to um a human being merelj for our own pleas- 
ure or jjroflt. In receiving him we receive Christ, and in receiving Christ we reoeiTa 
him who fl'.'nt Christ ( TUx. 10 :40 i. Christ is the v-ineand all men are his natural branchea. 
cutting tbfrmsf.'lvea off only when thc-y refuse to bear fruit, and condemning them- 
8elv<« U) the burning only because they destroy, so far as they can destroy, God's 
image In th'.-m, all that makes them worth preserving Ua^ 15: :-4;. Cicero: **Homo 
mortaliM d6uf>." This poav'ssion of natural Ukeness to God, or penonality, involves 
U^undJeas iMJSSibilitica of good or ill, and it constitutes the natural foundation of the 
love for man which is required of us by tbe law. Indeed it constitutes the reason why 
Cljrist should die. Man was worth redeeming. The woman whose ring slipped from 
her finger and fell into the heap of mud in tbe gutter, bared her white arm and thrust 
b«;r hand into the slimy mass until she found her ring ; but she would not have done 
this if tlie ring had not contained a costly diamond. The lost piece of money, tbe lost 
n\unt\t^ the lost s^in, were worth effort to seek and to save ( UktlS ). But, on the other 
hand, it is foliy when man, made in the image of God, ** blinds himself with day.*' The 
man on shiplK>ard, wlio playfully tossed up the diamond ring which contained his 
whole fortune, at last to his distress tossed it overboard. There is a "Mnhiadin rftMli '* 
( iMf. U : 13 ) and we must not juggle with them. 

Christ's death for man, by showing the worth of humanity, has recreated ethics. 
** Flato defended infanticide as under certain circumstances permissible. Aristotle 
viewed slavery as founded in the nature of things. The reason assigned was the essen- 
tial inferiority of nature on the pari of the enslaved." But the divine image in man 
makes these barbarities no longer possible to us. Christ sometimes looked upon men 
with anger, but he never looked upon them with contempt. Ho taught the woman« 
he blefwxl the child, he cleansed the leper, he raised the df^id. His own death revealed 
tlie inflnite worih of the meanest human soul, and taught us to count all men as breth- 
ren for whfjse solvation we may well lay down our lives. George Washington answered 
tin; salute of his slave. Abraham Lincoln took off his hat to a negro who gave him his 
blessing as he entered Richmond ; but a ludy who had been brought up under the old 
regime looked from a window upon the scene with unspeakable horror. Robert Bums, 
walking with a nobleman in Edinburgh, met an old townsfellow from Ayr and stopped 
to talk with him. The nobleman, kept waiting, grow restive, and afterward reproved 
Burns for talking to a man with so bad a coat. Bums replied : '* I was not talking to the 
out,— 1 was talking to the man." Jean Ingolow : *' The street and market plaoe Grow 
li*>ly ground : each face — Pale faces marked with core. Dark, toilwom brows— grows 
fair. King's childn^n aro all these, though wont and sin Have marred their beauty, 
glorious within. Wo may not pass them but with reverent eye." Seo Porter, Human 
Intellect, 383, 3M, iOl ; Wuttkc, Christian Bthics, 2 : 42; Phllippi, Glaubenslehre, 8 : 343. 

2. Moral likeness to Oody or holiness. 

lu addition to tho powers of self-conscionsness and self -determination 
juBt mcutiouedy man was created with such a direction of the afifections and 




ESSENTIALS OF MAN'S ORIGINAL STATE. 517 

the will, as constituted God the supreme end of man's being, and consti- 
tuted man a finite reflection of God*s moral attributes. Since holiness is 
the fundamental attribute of God, this must of necessity be the chief attri- 
bute of his image in the moral beings whom he creates. That original 
righteousness was essential to this image, is also distinctly taught in Script- 
ure (EccL 7:29; Eph. 4:24; CoL 3:10). 

Besides the poaBcssioQ of natural powers, the image of God involves the possession of 
right moral tendencies. It is not enough to say that man was created in a state of 
innocence. The Scripture asserU that man had a righteousness like God's: led. 7:29— 
"God mada nun upriglit" ; Iph. 4 : 24 — "the imv nun, that afUr God bAth baen creatad la rightaoTunen and holinaM 
of truth •' — here Meyer says : " nara e«6i', 'aftar God,' i. e., ad cxemplum Dei, after the pattern 
of God (GaL 4:28— Kara 'I<raaic, ^ after Isaac *=» as Isaac was). This phrase makes the 
creation of the new man a parallel to that of our first parents, who were created after 
God's image ; they too, before sin came into existence through Adam, were sinless— 'ia 
nghtaoQsiaasand holinaasoftrutL'" On N. T. '* truth "=» rectitude, see Wendt, Teaching of 
Jesus, 1:257-260. 

Meyer refers also, as a parallel passage, to CoL 3 : 10— "tha new man, that is Uag ranavad usto 
knovladgo aftar tha imago of him that oratted him." Here the " knoirladgo *' referred to is that knowledge 
of God which is the source of all virtue, and which is inseparable from holinc^ of heart. 
** Holiness has two sides or phases : ( 1 ) it is perception and knowledge ; ( 2 ) it is inclinaf- 
tion and feeling ** ( Shedd, Dogm. TheoL, 2 : 97 ). On SpL 4 : 24 and Col 3 : 10, the classical 
passages with regard to man^s original state, see also the Commentaries of DeWette, 
Rtickert, Ellicott, and compare Gan. 5:3—" ind idam llTod an hondrad and thir^ jean, and bagat a loa 
in hia owa. likenaaa, aftar his image," i. e., in his own sinful likeness, which is evidently contrasted 
with the "likanesaof God" (Taraai ) in which he himself had been created (An. Par. Bible). 
2Cor. 4:4 — "Christt vhoisthaimagaof God" — where the phrase "image of God" is not simply the 
naturaU but also the moral, image. Since Christ is the image of God primarily in his 
holiness, man's creation in the image of God must have involved a holiness like Christ's, 
so far as such holiness could belong to a being yet untried, that is, so far as respects 
man's tastes and dispositions prior to moral action. 

** Couldst thou in vision see Thyself the man God meant. Thou nevermore couldst be 
The man thou art — content." Newly created man had right moral tendencies, as well 
as freedom from actual fault. Otherwise the communion with God described in Genesis 
would not have been possible. Goethe : ** Unless the eye were sunliko, how could it 
see the sun?'* Because a holy disposition accompanied man's innocence, he was 
capable of obedience, and was guilty when he sinned. The loss of this moral likeness 
to God was the chief calamity of the FalL Man is now '* the glory and the scandal of 
the universe." He has defaced the image of God in his nature, even though that image, 
in its natural aspect, is ineffaceable ( E. H. Johnson ). 

The dignity of human nature consists, not so much in what man is, as in what God 
meant him to be, and in what God means him yet to become, when the lost image of 
God is restored by the union of man's soul with Clirist. Because of his future possi- 
bilities, the meanest of mankind is sacred. The great sin of the second table of the deca- 
logue is the sin of despising our fellow man. To cherish contempt for others can have 
its root only in idolatry of self and rebellion against God. Abraham Lincoln said well 
that '* God must have Uked common people,— else he would not have made so many of 
them . ** Regard for the image of God in man leads also to kind and reverent treatment 
even of those lower animals in which so many human characteristics are foreshadowed. 
Bradford, Heredity and Christian Problems, 166— " The current philosophy says : The 
fittest will survive ; let the rest die. The religion of Christ says : That maxim as applied 
to men is just, only as regards their characteristics, of which indeed only the fittest 
should survive. It does not and cannot apply to the men themselves, since all men, 
being children of God, are supremely fit. The very fact that a human being is sick, 
weak, poor, an outcast, and a vagabond, is the strongest possible appeal for effort 
toward his salvation. Let individuals look upon humanity from the point of view of 
Christ, and they will not be long in finding wayB in which environment can be caused 
to work for righteousness." 

This original righteousness, in which the image of God chiefly consistedy 
is to be viewed : 




518 AXTHROPOLOOYy OR THE DOCTRINE OF IIA^N. 

( a ) Not as oonstituting the snbetanoe or essenoe of human nature, — for 
in this case homan nature would have oeaaed to exist as soon as man sinned. 

Men every day changv their tastes and loves, without <*imn|fing the O BS cn ee or sub- 
stance of tlieir beiDg*. When sin is called a ** nature,'* therefore (asby8hedd,lnhi8 
Essay on ** Sin a Nature, and that Nature Guilt ** ), it is only in the sense of bein^ some- 
thing inborn ( nalurth from nagcor ). Hereditary tastes may Just as properly bo denomi- 
nated a ^* nature *' as may the substance of one's beinflr. Moehler, the greatest modem 
Roman Oatholic critic of Protestant doctrine, in his Symbolism, 58, 60, absurdly holds 
Luther to have taught that by the Fall man lost his essential nature, and that another 
essence was substituted in its room. Lut her, however, is only rhetorical when he says : 
** It is the nature of man to sin ; sin constitutes the essenoe of man ; the nature of man 
since the Fall has become quite changed ; original sin is that very thing which is bom 
of father and mother ; the clay out of which we are formed is damnable ; the foetus in 
the maternal womb is sin ; man as bom of his father and mother, together with his 
whole essence and nature, is not only a sinner but sin itself.** 

(6) Nor as a gift from without, foreign to homan natore, and added to 
it after man*s creation, — for man is said to have possessed the divine image 
by the fact of creation, and not by snbeeqnent bestowaL 

As men, since Adam, are Ixun with a sinful nature, that is, with tendencies away 
from God, so Adam was created with a holy nature, that is, with tendencies toward 
God. Moehler sa>'s : ** God caimot give a man actions.** We reply : ** No, but God can 
give man dispositions: and he does this at the first creation, as well as at the new 
creation ( regeneration ).** 

( c ) Bat rather, as an original direction or tendency of man's affections 
and will, still acoompanicd by the power of evil choice, and so, differing 
from the perfected holiness of the saints, as instinctive affection and child- 
like innocence differ from the holiness that has been developed and con- 
firmed by experience of temptation. 

Man's original righteousness was not immutable or indefectible; there was still the 
possibility of sinning. Though the first man was fundamentally good, he still had the 
power of choosing eviL There was a bent of the affections and will toward God, but 
man was not yet confirmed in holiness. Man's love for God was like the germinal filial 
affection in the child, not developed, yet sincere— '*caritas puerilis, non virilis.** 

( cf ) As a moral disposition, moreover, which was propagable to Adam's 
descendants, if it continued, and which, though lost to him and to them, 
if Adam sinned, would still leave man possessed of a natural likeness to 
Qod which made him susceptible of God*s redeeming grace. 

H'joker ( Work.H, ed. Kcble, S:683) distinguishes between aptness and ableness. The 
latter, iii(;n liave lost ; the former, they retain,— else grace could not work in us, more 
than In th<; brutes. Ilase : **Only enough likeness to God remained to remind man of 
what he hud Ifwt, and enable him to feel the hell of God's forsaking.** The moral like- 
w^m U} CffM (iiri \h' rof*torefl, but only by God himself. God secures this to men by 
irmking "ikel^btof UMi^ofpeloft^gloryofQirist, wkoistlieimageofGoi . .. . daire apon than " (20or.4:4). 
Vitm^y wtvU: Pl 72 : 6 — " Ee will coom down like nin apon tlie mown gran "— the imag(* of a world hopc- 
lewly 'ifrad, but with a hidden capacity for rec(^iving life. Dr. Daggett : ** Man is a 'aoa 
dxk/tmvmar/ (It. 14 .12;, fall«rn, yet arrested midway between heaven and hell, a prixe 
|^;twc«'ri tlie powfrrs of light and darkness." See Edwards, Works, 2:19,20,881-^)0; 
Hopkins, Works, 1:102; »hedrl, Hirt. Doctrine, 2:50-66; AugusUno, De Civitate Dei, 
14 :M. 

Iii t}je liglit uf tlie x>receding investigation, we may properly estimate 
two i]ttitfrUtH of riiaii*K (;rigirml state which claim to be more Scriptural and 
r4MM</iiabl(; : 

The image of Orxl as including only personality. 



ESSENTIALS OF HAN'S ORIGINAL STATE. 519 

This theory denies that any positiye determination to virtae inhered 
originally in man's nature, and regards man at the beginning as simply 
possessed of spiritual powers, perfectly adjusted to each other. This is the 
view of Schleiermaoher» who is followed by Nitzsoh^ Jolins Miiller» and 
Hofmann. 

For the yiew here oombated, see Sohleiermaoher, ChristL Olanbe, sea 60; Nltaoh, 
System of Christian Doctrine, SOI : Julius Mtlller, Doot. of Sin, 2 : 113-133, 860-867 ; Hof • 
mann, Schrif tbewols, 1 : 287-291 ; Bib. Sac., 7 : 409-425. Julius MUUer^s theory of the Fall 
In a preSzistent state makes it lmi>o8Bible for him to hold here that Adam was possessed 
of moral likeness to God. The origin of his view of the imacre of God renders it liable 
to suspicion. Pfleidcrer, Gruudrlss, 113 — *^ The ori^rinal state of man was that of child- 
like innocence or morally iDdifiTcrent naturalness, which had in Itself indeed the possi- 
bility ( Anlctge ) of ideal development, but in such a way that its realization could be 
reached only by strugsrle with its natural opposite. The image of God was already 
present In the ori^nal state, but only as the possibility (^nZa^e) of real likeness to 
God — the endowment of reason which belonged to human personality. The reality of 
a spirit like that of God has appeared first in the second Adam, and has become the 
principle of the kingdom of God." 

Raymond ( Theology, 2 : 43, 128) is an American representative of the view that the 
image of God consists in mere personality: '*The image of God in which man was 
created did not consist in an inclination and determination of the will to holiness.'* 
This is maintained upon the ground that such a moral likeness to God would have 
rendered it impossible for man to fall,— to which we reply that Adam's righteousness 
was not immutable, and the bias of bis will toward God did not render it impossible for 
him to sin. Motives do not compel the wiU, and Adam at least had a certain power of 
contrary choice. E. G. Robinson, Christ. Theology, 119-122, also maintains that the 
image of God signified only that personality which distinguished man from the brute. 
Christ, he says, carries forward human nature to a higher point, instead of merely 
restoring what is lost. "Toy good" (6«iLi:31) does not imply moral perfection,— this 
cannot be the result of creation, but only of discipline and will. Man's original state 
was only one of untried innocence. Dr. Robinson is combating the view that the first 
man was at his creation possessed of a developed character. He distinguishes between 
character and the germs of character. These germs he grants that man possessed. 
And so he defines the image of God as a constitutional predisposition toward a course 
of right conduct. This is all the perfection which we claim for the first man. We hold 
that this predisposition toward the good can properly be called character, since it is 
the germ from which all holy action springs. 

In addition to what has already been said in support of the opposite 
view, we may urge against this theory the following objections : 

(a) It is contrary to analogy, in making man the author of his own 
holiness ; our sinful condition is not the product of our individual wills, 
nor is our subsequent condition of holiness the product of anything bat 
God's regenerating jwwer. 

To hold that Adam was created undecided, would make man, as Philippi says, in the 
highest sense his own creator. But morally, as well as physically, man is God's crea- 
ture. In regeneration it is not sufficient for God to firive power to decide for good ; God 
must give new lore also. If this bo so in the new creation, God could give love 
in the first creation also. Holiness therefore is oreatable. ** Underived holiness is pos- 
sible only in God ; in its origin, it is given both to angels and men." Therefore wo pray : 
*'0rateinm«aol6anheirt"(Pi.5i:10); "bdinemylMtftimtotkytflftimonifls" (Pi.ll9:86). See Edwards, 
Bff. Grace, sec. 43-61 ; Kaftan, Dogrmatik, 290— ** If Adam's perfection was not a moral 
perfection, then his sin was no real moral corruption.** The animus of the theory we 
are combating seems to be an unwillingness to grant that man, either in his first crea- 
tion or in his new creation, owes his holiness to God. 

( & ) The knowledge of God in which man was originally created logically 
presupposes a direction toward God of man's affections and will, since only 
the holy heart con have any proper understanding of the God of hoHneaa. 



i 



yiO ANTUKOIVLOOY, OU THE DOCTEINB OF MAN. 

■■ I' J'i oHnius* \\>i cUintJW." Mrtii's lunirt was originally flllod with divine love, and out 
oi I ?»!% vrtjtu' i!k- kiiowU «l|R> of MkmX, Wo know (J<xl only as we love him, and this love 
v^Mlu■H «i»M tix»iii iMjr own »iiv>rlo volition. No one lo\t« by command, becaiuic no one 
.HI I <t^f IiiMi'aMr I.Mv. Ill AiUiin lovo was an inlKirn inipulfle, which he could afllrm or 
iUii\. \\Mn|>aix- l.Vr $ $ — "fuv a*aU>Tv'A God. th« suae [(lOd] is known bj him"; IJokn 4:8— "Et 
-iA*i uivth -jiH in^wvift urt wnL" 2hv ot hor Scripture references on pagt58 3, 4. 

^ ^O V likc!UYte( U> in\l in mero ivrsonality, such as Satan also possesses, 
o\»tno<i irir sJuTt of A:\>«i'riujj tho iloiuiuiiis of the Scrii)tiire, in which the 
oiii^at K\'i:v\'i»t:v'!'. of i!:o li'Muo ii:itiin« ao ovoFshotiows the merely natural. 
V'u' •■«i.4j<v ot vUxl must Iv, iK»t tiimplv ability to be like God, but actual 



'.ltv\'tK-«<(. 



viksi .^•11 M •.K^vx'r %'ix\i'.v Aix tt\u*U-g:\'n( Ivtnir ovt>a]y balanced between g^ood and evil— 
•■,.4» u' "i.*'! X v^^KV ■* — "»*« ?!K' ti'iuv." Tho pn^acher who took for his text "idaa, 
«j».» ..• .K-a 'laJ 'A>i \.tf :«THe S-M^t: *' U is o\-vr>'man*8 business to b<; somewhere:** 
:\-. IS *A»'tu» '■ v."vot >\h: *r\* whoix' you ou^rht not to U.*;** and for his third: 
■ \»A *f H u »%• * «u! »•»: i'vi ix' :v, v* -ivvv. »ss ;H>«k:Mt\" A simple mpaelty for good or evil 
m k. V •>• «■••»' *co>. i"^"»i*'^* vv •.*.:'.. A ::'.h:\ who is noutral lH'twi>en good and evil is 
fc.i« .4>> * * •*'■•» ^'t »•■ ■■^'•'- ';«'*. *• '«.**. txN;".;r«6 Ukoiu'W to OtKl in the bent of his nature. 
■s. ! ,. .1, ♦i»», ^v^:**-. . fc.' "v« ■'l\r<<'i-.jfc -.rv tf oi'.ly tho l»asis of the divine image,— 

; -» .X . u 'i.wsv >* .' ' IvvxInvv TtBO"* ti*v n' awi N* HO oroato^l virtue or viciousness. 
^* K ..,.*. v'li -K- « . , <»^ ' .-. .vv '* '. • •.>:s *:•-*» sayj^ rather: "Thi*n* can be no created 
...... I ■« *i» H»»"»' -i H» ■'.. \ 't '.: ^ -i-uro :is vTiMUxl w:is puro aud excellent, but there 

.. ... ..'..I.:;., ..^..'vi.o.:* ■.:•.." "v >.'*^ r^\v"^ .•»::vi riirhtl^' oxorowHl bis will with full 

^u*. *' K'.x.' ■• » ^^ .' ♦•.'•■ I*' ••■■ "v ^ -A* :'.o:h:r.tr meritorious even then. For 
... V .., ..V ■»» «* .-.'.♦x ♦ »'•■ V '^v '.■■■ v;';, *.' ..■*;:*,x'::»lohr\N 'J : 'iUt, Leaning said that the 

.v....«.«. '■ «» -..\ *••».% .., H t^ ,' '.tw a%* v>-*r5io:er. G\x*ihe partixik of this c<wmo- 

^ , .,.4 .», I . .1 ..•^- X sv* . ■••i*i vv ,^ . ;V:'v.:»^".i had i«\vthe in view when he wrote 

u ■!,•*:*.% V . '. *■ ».\« ■. *'*o. ■-•rf '.v !or:uof onxHl. but contemplating all.** 

V .. ..*.u N •■»■•.»•>* »• * ' ^-^^ .-.' V -.V worlf: -A irlorious devil, large in heart 

v. .. '■»•. '■ •■*» ■'*»* * •*.* v^r ; jcv^x:. i:\xV.only for Its iHrtuty"; see A. H. 

^. , V *,. ■ » V . , 4 .vi v.- ••H.>-..'<». j;^'. : U.'N'rt Bn^wiiin^', (Tiristmas Eve: 

.., .. , . . N ' »!* Hvv ■ f ■. Hvx' I'.-jX 'it x'urs impressed: Though he la so 

^ ^ ....„» .. . »^ • , % '..tek •► > * ••.*^' :o w:?::t'«» hiiTu" 

V "\. ^.v*,.,* '. vi^x*. 4* ^vf.x:.<i-.;j; *:"vv;y in niau*s natural capacity for 

•. .1 . . .s .» . •• -^» , ;;*X':ha\1 >^ C*o A*^c A^riv^s* is tho dootrino of the Roman 
>%. j^ .'.^ V • . * .». *' ^^ \<' x:»c* \vcn\t:u :l*.o iiua^o and the likeness of 



V 



. : .. ^ i ^ ,*''\ v\'. , : . ,V ^ aIov.o lv*,o::j^\i to nkiu's nature at 

I -u u.-v i ^ N •' ^ %t.s .'.'c vrxxiuot y}i his own acts of obedi- 

■ . ,v i . I.. • - .•:\x-v;v\ s*'« '^"^^ --^•'^ easier and the conse- 






.^ ,. »■x^^■ :.'.v-..v, I iz-'lA-ue:::*-** added— an element 

* [ >,. .^. w. *' ' . ^ - ^ -.cS, :i siuxr-^turJ gift of speoiid 
'.L^, •' *-' --'-= **;•.. •* VV'- •■'- s*'v.*i'^"*^ iiuviilsi^ and bnnight 

,. . ,.»v. '. v^-;' -.U rv^?.:<v'.:>-^o;s* wus then^foro 
... . . ., \. k v . '. v:\v. vG o: riuii's obedieaotj and of 

X N Kvv^ iw .V ^.i.vv y*ivc ,-i vi.c-'* ^--Ll r^xvttxM twv iinpiv*- 

vs-ifc. t^v«*«*.-»»" ^^* '^' ■^'**''' ^ ■* ^'^" :=:Vf«»:vc* should n.^t 

' ■ jfl^H^^Eibr vK->« v. >v'»»» ^'*- ■»^' *«i:.-.-\''vc #v\.\l tnsA.vnds the 

' Mia^(K^..« JKi i^'v .^H-ix Ajd wnL'call^v N?I.>n,r i.> 

Wm^i=tv.x k.v^or. ..^■..H:.'>urvh f.-r truth and 

M«^ >»v>k««*? t *. . 1 * Aja ,K- oeihrc. ^us be«u« the 



ESSEKTIALS OF MAN'S ORIGINAL STATE. 521 

The Roman Catholic doctrine may be roughly and pictorially stated as follows : Aa 
created, man was morally naked, or devoid of positive rigrhteousness (pura naluraHa^ 
or in puria ncUuralibus). By obedience he obtained aa a reward from God (doman 
auperncUuraie^ or supcradditum ) a suit of clothes or robe of righteousness to protect 
him, so that he became clothed ( veetitwh This suit of clothes, however, was a sort of 
magic spell of which he could be divested. The adversary attacked him and stripped 
him of his suit. After his sin he was one despoiled ( spciictttu ). But his condition 
after differed from his condition before this attack, only as a stripped man differs from 
a naked man ( 8poliat\i8 a nudo ). He was now only in the same state in which he was 
created, with the single exception of the weakness he might feel as the result of losing 
his customary clothing. He could still earn himself another suit,— in fact, he oould 
earn two or more, so as to sell, or give away, what he did not need for himself. The 
phrase in ptiris naturalibu8 describes the original state, as the phrase spoliatua a nudo 
describes the difference resulting from man's sin. 

Many of the oonsiderations already adduced apply equaUy as arguments 
against this view. We may say, however, with reference to certain features 
peculiar to the theory : 

( a ) No such distinction can justly be drawn between the words D 7^ and 
n^D.*!. The addition of the synonym simply strengthens the expression, 
and both together signify "the very image." 

( 6 ) Whatever is denoted by either or both of these words was bestowed 
upon man in and by the fact of creation, and the additional hypothesis of 
a supernatural gift not originally belonging to man's nature, but subse- 
quently conferred, has no foundation either here or elsewhere in Scripture. 
Man is said to have been created in the image and likeness of God, not to 
have been afterwards endowed with either of them. 

(c) The concreated opposition between sense and reason which this 
theory supposes is inconsistent with the Scripture declaration that the 
work of God's hands "was very good" (Gen. 1 :dl), and transfers the 
blame of temptation and sin from man to God. To hold to a merely nega- 
tive innocence, in which evil desire was only slumbering, is to make God 
author of sin by making him author of the constitution which rendered sin 
inevitable. 

(d) This theory directly contradicts Scripture by making the effect of 
the first sin to have been a weakening but not a perversion of human 
nature, and the work of regeneration to be not a renewal of the affections 
but merely a strengthening of the natural powers. The theory regards 
that first sin as simply despoiling man of a special gift of grace and as 
putting him where he was when first created — still able to obey God and 
to cooperate with God for his own salvation, — whereas the Scripture 
represents man since the fall as " dead through . . . trespasses and sins'* 
(Eph. 2 : 1 ), as incapable of true obedience ( Bom. 8:7 — '* not subject to 
the law of God, neither indeed can it be " ), and as needing to be " created 
in Christ Jesus for good works " ( Eph. 2 : 10 ). 

At few points in Christian doctrine do we see more clearly than here the large results 
of error wliich may ultimately spring from what might at first sight seem to be only a 
slight divergence from the truth. Augustine had rightly taught that in Adam the 
p()86e iwn peccare was accompanied by a passe peccare^ and that for this reason man's 
holy disposition needed the help of divine grace to preserve its Integrity. But the scho- 
lastics wrongly added that this original disposition to righteousness was not the outflow 
of man's nature as originally created, but was the gift of grace. As this later teaching, 
however, was by some disputed, the Ck)uncilof Trent (sess. 5, cap. 1) left the matter 



522 ANTHROPOLOGY^ OU THE DOCTRINE OF MAN. 

more IndeflnitCv dmply declaring man : " Sanctitatom et jostitiam in qua tnmHUdm 
futraU amlBfflse." Tbe Roman Catechism, hoircver ( 1 : 2 : 19), explained the phnse 
^ constitutus f uerat " by the words : * Tum orifflnalls justitise admlrabile donom addU 
dlt." And BeUarmino ( De Gratia, 2 ) 8a>'8 piaioly : ** Imacro, quae est ipsa natura mentia 
et voluntatis, a solo Deo fieri potuit; 8imilitudoautem,qaiB in yiitute et probitate 
oonsistit, a nobis fflytgue Deo adjuvante porflcitur.'* . . • • ( 6) ^ Inteinritas Ula . . . mo 

f uit naturalis ejus or>uditlo, scd supematuralis evcctio Addidiase homini donum 

quoddam insiirn^ justitlam videlicet oriffinalem, qua veluti anreo qnodam Cneoo pars 
Inferior parti superiori subjecta continerotur.'* 

Moehler ( Hymbolism, 21-36 ) holds that the religious faculty — the **■ image of God ^ ; 
the pious exertion of this faculty — the ^ likeness of God.** He seems to favor the view 
that Adam received ** this sup<-matural gift of a holy and blessed oomnmnion with God 
at a later perif k1 than his creation, i. c, only when he had prepared himself for its 
reception and by his own efforts had rendered himself worthy of it.'* He was created 
^ Just " and acceptable to G(xl, even without communion with God or help from God. 
He became ** holy " and enjoyed communion with God, only when God rewarded his 
obedience and bestowed the mipemaiuralc donum. Although Moehler favors this view 
and claims that it is permitted by the standards, ho also says that it is not definitely 
taught. The quotations from Uellarmineand the Roman Catechism above make it cleaT 
that it is the prevailing doctrine of the Roman Catholic church. 

So, to quote the words of Shcdd, ** the Tridentine theology starts with Pelagianim 
and cuds with Augustinianism. Created without character, God subsequently endows 

man with character The Papal idea of creation differs from the Augustlnian in 

that it involves imperfection. There is a disease and languor which require a subse- 
quent and 8U|)cmatural act to remedy.'* The Augustlnian and Protestant conception of 
man*8 original state is far nobler than this. The ethical element is not a later addition, 
but is man's true nature— essential to God's idea of him. The normal and original con- 
dition of man (pura naturalta) is one of grace and of the Spirit's indwelling— hence, 
of direction toward God« 

From this original difference between Roman Catholic and Protestant doctrine with 
regard to man's original state result diverging views as to sin and as to regeneration. 
The Protestant holds that, as man was poasessed by creation of moral likeness to God, 
or holiness, so his sin robbed his nature of its integrity, deprived it of essential and 
ooncroated advantages and powers, and substituted for tliese a positive corruption and 
tendency to evil. Unpremeditated evil desire, or concupiscence, is original sin; as 
ooncrcated love for God constituted man's original righteousness. No man since the 
fall has original righteousness, and it is man's sin that he has it not. Since without love 
to God no act, emotion, or thought of m^n can answer the demands of God's law, the 
Scripture denies to fallen man all power of himself to know, think, feel, or do aright. 
His nature therefore needs a new-creation, a resurrection from death, such as God 
only, by his mighty Spirit, can work ; and to this work of God man can contribute 
nothing, except as power is first given him by God himself. 

According to the Roman Catholic view, however, since the image of God In which 
man was created included only man's religious faculty, his sin can rob him only of 
what became subsequently and adventitiously his. Fallen man differs from unfallen 
only as »poliatm a undo. He looes only a sort of magic spell, which leaves him still in 
posBcsHion of all his essential powers. Unpremeditated evil desire, or concupiscence, is 
not sin ; for this l>el()nged to his nature even before he fell. His sin has therefore only 
put him iMick into the natural state of conflict and concupiscence, ordered by God in the 
ooncreated opposition of sciibc and reason. The sole qualification is this, that, having 
ma«lc an evil decision, his will is weakened. ** Man docs not need resurrection from 
death, but rather a crutch to help his lameness, a tonic to reinforce his feebleness, a 
metliclno to cure his sickness." He is still able to tum to God ; and in regeneration the 
Holy Spirit simply awakens and strengthens tbe natural ability slumbering in the nat- 
ural man. But even here, man must yield to the influence of the Holy Spirit; and 
regeneration is effected by uniting his power to the divine. In baptism the guilt of 
original sin is remitted, and everything calUnl sin is taken away. No baptized person 
has any further process of regeneration to undergo. Man has not only strength to 
oo()lH*rate with God for his own salvation, but he mtiy e>'en go beyond the demands of 
tlie law and iH»rf»)rm works of sup<»n»rogrtti»Hi. And the whole sacramental system of 
the Uomun Catholic ('hun*h, with its s;ilvati()n by works, its purgatorial fires, and its 
iuvooaUonof the saints, oonnoots itsc«lf logically with this erroneous theory of man's 



r\ 



IKCIDENTS OF MAN'S ORIGIKAL STATE. 623 

Sec Domer^ Augrustlnus, 116 ; Pcrrone, Preeleotionea Theologicie, 1 : 737-748 ; Winer, 
ConfosBions, 79, 80 ; Domer, History Protestant Theology, 88, 89, and Olaubenalehrc, 1 ; 
51 ; Van Ooeterzeo, Dogmatics, 876 ; Cunningham, Historical Theology, 1 : 616-686 ; Shedd, 
Hist. Doctrine, 2 : 110-149. 

n. Incidents of Man's Obiqikaii State. 

1. Besulta of mavCs possession of the divine image, 

(a) Beflecidon of this divine image in man's physical form. — Even in 
man's body were typified those higher attributes which chiefly constituted 
his likeness to God. A gross perversion of this truth, however, is the view 
which holds, upon the ground of Gen. 2 : 7, and 3 : 8, that the image of God 
consists in bodily resemblance to the Creator. In the first of these passages, 
it is not the divine image, but the body, that is formed of dust, and into 
this body the soul that possesses the divine image is breathed. The second 
of these passages is to be interpreted by those other portions of the Pen- 
tateuch in which God is represented as free from all limitations of matter 
(Gen. 11 :5; 18:15). 

The spirit presents the divine Image immediately : the body, mediately. The scholas- 
tics called the soul the image of God proprie; the body they called the image of God 
signijlcative. Soul is the direct reflection of God ; body is the reflection of that reflec- 
tion. The o8 sublime manifests the dignity of the endowments within. Hence the word 
* upright,' as applied to moral condition ; one of the first impulses of the renewed man 
is to physical purity. Ck>mpare Ovid, Metaph., bk. 1, Dryden^s transl. : **Thus while the 
mute creation downward bend Their sight, and to their earthly mother tend, Man looks 
aloft, and with erected eyes Beholds his own hereditary skies." fAi^pwirot, from ayi^ 
aKw, suffix tra^ and Jti^, with reference to the upright posture.) Milton speaks of ** the 
human face divine." S. S. Times, July 28, 1900— *' Man is the only erect being among 
living creatures. He alone looks up naturally and without effort. He foregoes his 
birthright when he looks only at what is on a level with his eyes and occupies himself 
only with what lies in the plane of his own existence.'* 

Bretschneider ( Dogmatik, 1 : 682 ) regards the Scripture as teaching that the image of 
God consists in bodily resemblance to the Creator, but considers this as only the impeiw 
feet method of representation belonging to an early age. So Strauss, Glaubenslehre, 
1 :687. They refer to 6en.2:7~*'indJflhov«li6odformadmaaoftkedutofthogroand"; 3 : 8— "JohoTah 
God valking in the gardoa." But see G«ii. 11 : 5 — "ind Jahorah otma dovn to im tho dtj and tii« tovsr, vhieh tk« 
ohildraiofmeiibailded"; It. 66 : l—"HeAT0n is mj throne^ and the earth is injfiiotitool"; iX.8:27— "beholdiheaTni 
and the hearen of hearens oannok oontain thee." On the Anthropomorphites, see Hagenbach, Hist. 
Doct., 1 : 108, 808, 48L For answers to Bretschneider and Strauss, see Philippi, Glaubens- 
lehre, 2 : 86i. 

( 6 ) Subjection of the sensnons impulses to the control of the spirit. — 
Here we are to hold a middle ground between two extremes. On the one 
hand, the first man possessed a body and a spirit so fitted to each other that 
no conflict was felt between their several claims. On the other hand, this 
physical perfection was not final and absolute, but relative and provisionaL 
There was still room for progress to a higher state of being ( Gen. 8 : 22 ). 



Sir Henry Watton^s Happy Life : ** That man was free from servile bands Of. hope to 
rise or fear to fall. Lord of himself if not of lands. And having nothing yet bad all." 
Here we hold to the (Bquale temperamentum. There was no disease, but rather the Joy 
of abounding health. Labor was only a happy activity. God's infinite creatorship and 
fountainhead of being was typified in man's powers of generation. But there was no 
concreated opposition of sense and reason, nor an imperfect physical nature with whose 
impulses reason was at war. With this moderate Scriptural doctrine, contrast the ezag* 
gerations of the Fathers and of the scholastics. Augustine says that Adam's reason was 
to ours what the bird's is to that of the tortoise ; propagation in the un fallen state 
would have been without ooncupisoonoe, and the new-bom child would have attained 



p«»rf i^r.tir-c It ^irdi. AJin^rrrji Msmtiibi 'hriiariic rht* Inc 3un vr aiii '3iiT<> fieit ns ptiiv 

- Xaa <:maiit i=.v. tot* v.rji a ^aijijei cctw JLrufritje -m-M tirs -ae mttnih •:? in 

AdAffl." Lyxan A^rt"«T vLa ^a* ■'./ 1 3i.n.»r*r "»iii; ufi«ir<:il i:a -.tTcarwaij/c :2ax A ^*m 



<h> 




d&a sTiC p^^cvaeni Alois jn a v^rJkin^ «o:r-'*-?'^^^'*- -u* j:* a ririz^ t«c 
ecced : *« >«. 1 S— '3mk.«. ae am:i v"^ ■ ne if xsl n iiurv rue ku frl ' ::«c.*J 4 — 



r r ) l>:Trfr.ios> OT-er iL-e Inrer crrasiE. — A Ur- p«:<sge5Eed *a insight into 
nature »eaI icoci fc> cus of s^iA-tr^cl-* ciilIi»:oi. az-d ^er^rf: re was able 
to rAzie icl \t> rzlK zL^ hnze or^eari'.n G^zl^ 2 : 1? f. Tvt this natiTe 
insxgbt was car«ble cf arT-el>r::i«rz.: in^o zL*^ Li*L-frr kr. -tItiI^ of coltnre 
and science, Fp:-=; G^n- 1 : •>? r/. Psw S : o^S . it Lis c»>: n err-.-neoaslT 
inferred that the in:ace of G-^i in min ct:r:?i5«s in d:r:i-.:.-^n over the bmte 
creation and the nascnl w riL B:ii. in tlis v.rr?e. the » rds ''let them 
have domini'-^n" do not denne the •- y^e- c-f G.«L b:it in>i:cate the result 
of po(9E«s8ing that inia^. To m^e the ims^ of G- -.1 consist in this 
dominion, would impiv that onlr the divine onmi^tence w shadowed 
forth in man. 



I 



■Ht b «• v^: te vnjc ai. ;ms S— * iiii a* aaiim** UBifs vi &^ asj» : a«L t : S — 'Lit «>aiki au 
ii ««r iaJA &Ar at l^ani ui -« a-a >i^ ouLXua i-rr ai itt lif ai «& au it« *.m tiro vf ikt fcaiin, 
ui me ttf as::* ' : ir '. H 9 5-^ — ~ 'JA as: aabi ui m: ^^ jxvtr Uki adk. lai n-wvc: ut w^ ^.xj taA 
kMir. !Vna«k«M Lxa b^ iiaiiLiamraf Virxi ifaj ului TbK lw: u: L. aian laaar u &« : lH ikiff 
oi M«. T«^ lai ;m Sma ii'A* i»uL ' A Usi'5 zATr.:'f ;be Ani=:.t:^ iin;l.i-«l in«i^t Into their 
natuix^: av IVrtor. Hum. Ir.tilAVt. JKk SK fil. Or. niA^'fl ordinal dominioa over 
( 1 ^ Mf. \ - ^ Daiurw ■. $ ^ («*:^>v.ni&3. jwe Hoj-^iiu. 5or: : :xinL Idea of Mac, 106. 

iVuraiw* *tKl a svxxi «.vm<'hc^,v have* pi^wvr ovi r :be bniie cr^atioa, and anfaUeii 
mani<au w\«ll N^ »ui>ixi««>l to ^a^'x dosizr^:^ crka:ui\Y vhkrh had no exiterience of 
human orth^Iiy. Kaxx\v tanK>d xhi^ vi:<d«^ h.-rw» t v ha fteadfas and fearlev rye. In 
|\ui!k A > ou:vir voman wa« h>-v::o:-A\l and put :=:o « dea of liosa. She had no fear of 
I ho Ikmw *iul I ho li\uw i^id not ibo s:*4r^:o$; atw-nt^-^r. to her. The little dau^ter of 
an Kxxif l»l» otn^vr in S^^uih Afrva war.vVn[\l away frosa oaunp antl sp^^it iheniirht amon^ 
li%M)». "Kjitnna," ht»r fa:hor M.d wht a he f^HirJ her, •" wxre j-ou not afraid to be alono 
hi'n* 1 " " N*v »«!>*-" »^* ivpix>*. ** 'S^*? ^i# 'i*:^* r-Avol w.:h me and one of them lay 
h**n* *ml Kopt nu» wamu" MAclaivn. ia S^ S^ T.-.r-OR. rvx\23. 1»5 — "The dominion 
o\ or all ontitunv nwilt* ft>>m I;kt^m># to iiv>i. li if not then a mfi\* ri|rht to use them 
Cor \MH»N own iiMt^^nal a«1\anta^\ hut a VKon\v* Au:horiiy, which the holder Is bound 
to owWo> for tho h«M»or of tho true K::ip." Th» prnoipW gives the warrant and the 
hn«ft lo XIX fc^vnon ami to tb** K:llir4r of the K^wvr *n;nurf lor food <G«. 9:1V. 

Sl^sMniau wntor* iw»noraHx hold tin^ view that th^^ Imaisv of God consisted simply tai 
ll^ai «K«iiuuuMK lloMuvr a low \ k'w of th^^ hax uxv of sin. they arc naturally dlstnclincd 
fv% N^H'xo that tht^ f^U ha» wn^uirUt an.v pn^found ohanco m human nature. See their 
xa'w Trtat^Hl In i ho Kacsnian i>itochi»m. SI. It is hold al*^ by the Arminian Limborch, 
t%i«\NL v'hvwi.^ ii. d« : i, Dk U. Vix^n tho baste of this interpretation of Scripture, the 
|lM>Mti««w lM>Kt, wnh IVt^Y MArtyr* that women do not |k«i90ss the divine ima«e at aU. 

with iVxL— Chir Arst jviwuts enjoyed the divine preo- 

(iVn. i : 1<> V It WKMild sot»m that Cnxl manifested him- 

fixrm C iVn. :^ : 8 ). Tliis comiianionship was both 

■oiled lo their 8|uritu*l oapadtj, and bj no meana 




IKCIDENTS OF'mAK'S ORIGINAL STATB. 525 

neoessarilj involved that perfected vision of God which is possible to 
beings of confirmed and unchangeable holiness ( Mat. 5 : 8 ; 1 John 3:2). 

G«iL 2 : 16— *'iiidJohov«li God oommuidfld tke bub '* ; 3 : 8 — " And they hmrd the touo of JihevahM mS^ag in 
thegvdenmtboooolQftbodAj"; KU.5:8— "BlooMdanthopnninhMit: flbr th^ ikall mo Sod " ; lJohn8:S — 
*«WeknovthM.ifkeihaUbouaifiHtad, woBhaUbolikoUm; firvoshaUMohimornu hoii'^ R«T^ 
thoyahftUsoehitfiteek" 

2. Concomitants of rtiarCa possession of the divine image. 

( a ) Surroundings and society fitted to yield happiness and to assist a 
holy development of human nature ( Eden and Eve )• We append some 
recent theories with regard to the creation of Eve and the nature of Eden. 

Eden — pleasure, delight. Tennyson : ** When high in Paradise By the four rivets the 
flrat roses blew.'* Streams were necessary to the very existence of an oriental garden. 
Hopkins, Script. Idea of Man, 107 — ** Man includes woman. Creation of a man without 
a woman would not have been the creation of man. Adam called her name Eve but 
God called their name Adam.** Mat. Henry : ** Not out of his head to top him, nor out 
of his feet to be trampled on by him ; but out of his side to be equal with him, under 
his arm to be protected by him, and near his heart to be beloved." Robert Burns says 
of nature : ** Her *prentice hand she tried on man. And then she made the lasses, O I '* 
Stevens, Pauline Theology, 829— ** In the natural relations of the sexes there is a certain 
reciprocal dependence, since it is not only true that woman was made from man, but 
that man is born of woman (1 Cor. 11: 11,12)." Of the Elgin marbles Boswell asked: 
** Don*t you think them indecent?'* Dr. Johnson replied: "No, sir; but your ques- 
tion is.** Man, who in the adult state possesses twelve pairs of ribs, is found in the 
embryonic state to have thirteen or foiurteen. Dawson, Modem Ideas of Evolution, 
148 — " Why does not the male man lack one rib ? Because only the individual skeleton 
of Adam was affected by the taking of the rib. . • • The unfinished vertebral arches of 
the skin-flbrous layer may have produced a new individual by a process of budding or 
gemmation.** 

H. H. Bawden suggests that the account of Bve^s creation may be the *' pictorial sum- 
mary " of an actual phylogenetic evolutionary process by which the sexes were separ- 
ated or isolated from a common hermaphroditic ancestor or ancestry. The mesodermio 
portion of the organism in which the urinogenital system has its origin develops later 
than the ectodermic or the endodermic portions. The word "rib" may designate 
this mesodcrmic portion. Bayard Taylor, John Oodfrey*s Fortimes, 398, suggests that 
a genius is hermaphroditic, adding a male element to the woman, and a female element 
to the man. Professor Loeb, Am. Journ. Physiology, Vol. Ill, no. 8, has found that in 
certain chemical solutions prepared in the laboratory, approximately the ooncentrar 
tion of sea-water, the unfertilized eggs of the sea-urchin will mature without the 
intervention of the spermatozoon. Perfect embryos and normal individuals are pro- 
duced under these conditions. He thinks it probable that similar parthenogenesis may 
be produced in higher types of being. In 1900 he achieved successful results on Anne^ 
lids, though it is doubtful whether he produced anything more than nomud larxHB. 
These results have been criticized by a European investigator who is also a Roman 
priest. Prof. Loeb wrote a rejoinder in which he expressed surprise that a representa- 
tive of the Roman church did not heartily endorse his conclusions, since they aiford 
a vindication of the doctrine of the Immaculate conception. 

H. H. Bawden has reviewed Prof. Loeb's work in the Psychological Review, Jan. 
1900. Janoslk has found segmentation in the unfertilized eggs of mammalians. Prof. 
Loeb considers it possible that only the ions of the blood prevent the parthenogenetio 
origin of embryos in mammals, and thinks it not improbable that by a transitory 
change in these ions it will be possible to produce complete parthenogenesis in these 
higher types. Dr. Bawden goes on to say that " both parent and child are dependent 
upon a common source of energy. The universe is one great organism, and there is no 
inorganic or non-organic matter, but differences only in degrees of organization. Sex 
is designed only secondarily for the perpetuation of species ; primarily it is the bond or 
medium for the connection and Interaction of the various parts of this great organism, 
for maintaining that degree of heterogeneity which is the prerequisite of a high degree 
of organization. By means of the growth of a lifetime I have become an essential 
part in a great organic system. What I call my individual personality r»v«BBata 



526 ANTHROPOLOGY, OR THB DOCTRIKE OF MAK. 

simply the fooiislnfr, the flowerinflr of the universe at one finite concrete point or 
centre. Must not then my personality continue as long as that universal system con- 
tinues ? And is immortality conceivable if the soul is something shut up within itself, 
unshareablo and unique ? Are not the many foci mutually interdependent, instead of 
mutually exclusive ? We must not then conceive of an Immortality which means the 
continued existence of an individual cut off from that social context which is really 
essential to his very nature." 

J. H. Richardson suggests in the Standard, Sept. 10, 1901, that the first chapter of 
Genesis describes the creation of the spiritual part of man only — that part which 
was made in the image of God — while the second chapter describes the creation of 
man*s body, the animal part, which may have been originated by a process of evolu- 
tion. 8. W. Howland. in Bib. Sac., Jan. 1903: 121-128, supposes Adam and Eve to have 
been twins. Joined by the ensif orm cartilage or breast-bone, as were the Siamese Chang 
and Eng. By violence or accident this cartilage was broken before it hardened into 
bone, and the two were separated until puberty. Then Adam saw Eve coming to him 
with a bone projecting from her side corresponding to the hollow in his own side, and 
said : ** She is bone of my bone ; she must have been taken from my side when I 
slept.'* This tradition was handed down to his posterity. The Jews have a tradition 
that Adam was created doubl&«exed, and that the two sexes were afterwards sep- 
arated. The Hindus say that man was at first of both sexes and divided himself in 
order to people the earth. In the Zodiac of Dendera, Castor and Pollux api>ear as 
man and woman, and these twins, some say, were called Adam and Eve. The Coptio 
name for this sign is Pi Mahi, ** the United." Darwin, in the postscript to a letter to 
Lyell, written as early as July, 1850, tells his friend that he has **a pleasant genealogy 
for mankind," and describes our remotest ancestor as " an animal which breathed 
water, had a swim-bladder, a great swimming tail, an imperfect skull, and was 
undoubtedly a hermaphrodite." 

Matthew Arnold speaks of ** the freshness of the early world.** Novalis says that ** all 
philosophy begins in homesickness." Shelley, Skylark : " We look before and after. 
And pine for what is not : Our siuccrest laughter With some pain is fraught ; Our sweet- 
est songs are those That tell of saddest thought." — '' The golden conception of a Para- 
dise is the poet's guiding thought." There is a universal feeling that we are not now 
in our natural state ; that wc are far away from home ; that we are exiles from our true 
habitation. Keblo, Ci rotins of Nature : ** Such thoughts, the wreck of Paradise, Through 
many a dreary age. Upbore whato'er of good or wise Yet lived in bard or sage.** 
Poetry and music echo the longing for some poMtossion lost. Jessica in Shakespeare's 
Merchant of Venice : " I am never merry when I hear sweet music.'* All true poetry is 
forward-looking or backward-looking prophecy, as sculpture sets before us the 
original or the resurrection body. See Isaac Taylor, Hebrew Poetry, 91-101 ; Tyler, 
Theol. of Greek Poets. 225, 228. 

Wellhausen, on the legend of a golden age, says : ** It is the jreaming song which goes 
through all the peoples : ha>ing attained the historical civilization, they feel the worth 
of the goods which they have sacrificed for it." He regards the golden age as only an 
ideal imago, like the millennial kingdom at the end. Man differs from the beast in this 
power to form ideals. His destination to God shows his descent from God. Hegel in a 
similar manner cluimcd that the Puradiaaic etmdition is only an i<l(?al conception under- 
lying human development. But may not the tiuditions of the gardens of Brahma and 
of the 11 esp<'rideft embody the world's recollection of an historituil tact, when man was 
free from external evil and possessed all that could minister to innocent Joy? The 
** golden ago " of the heathen was connceted with the hoiH) of restoration. So the use 
of the docrtrlne of man's original state is to convince men of the high ideal once realized, 
proiMjrly l>elonging to man, now lost, and rtrcovtirabUj, not by man's own powers, but 
only through (iod'H provision in Christ. For references in classic writers to a golden 
age, WH3 Luthardt, ConiiMindium, 115. He mentions the following : Hesiod, Works and 
Days, 10»-2(JH; Aratus, Phenom., 100-184; Plato, Tim., 233; Vergil, Be., 4, Georgios, 
1:135, ^:ncid,8:314. 

( h ) ProviHions for tho trying of man's virtue. — Since man was not yet 
in a Htiito of confirmed holiness, but rather of simple childlike innooenoCy 
h« (umUl bo niado jwrfoct only tlurough temptation. Hence the "tree of 
tlin knowliwlgn of good and «vil *' ( Gen. 2:9). The one slight command 
ftwitud the spirit of obedience. Temptation did not necessitate a falL 




IKCIDBNT8 OF MAK's ORIGINAL 8TATB. 627 

If resisted, it would strengthen virtae. In that d&se, the po88e non peccare 
would have become the non posse peccare. 

Thomaslus : ** That evil is a neoesBary transition-point to good, is Satan's doctrine and 
philosophy.*' The tree was mainly a tree of probation. It is right for a father to make 
his son's title to his estate depend upon the performance of some filial duty, as Thad- 
deus Stevens made his son's possession of property conditional upon his keeping the 
temperance-pledge. Whether, besides this, the tree of knowledge was naturally hurt- 
ful or poisonous, we do not know. 

(c) Opportunity of seeming physical immortality. — The body of the 

first man was in itself mortal ( 1 Gor. 15 : 45 ). Science shows that physical 

life involves decay and loss. But means were apparently provided for 

checking this decay and preserving the body's youth. This means was the 

*' tree of life " ( Gen. 2:9). If Adam had maintained his integrity, the 

body might have been developed and transfigored, without intervention of 

death. In other words, the posse non mori might have become a non 

posse mori. 

The tree of life was ssrmbolic of communion with Qod. and of man*s dependence upon 
him. But this, only because it had a phsrsical efficacy. It was sacramental and 
memorial to the soul, because it sustained the life of the body. Natural immortality 
without holiness would have been unending misery. Sinful man was therefore shut 
out from the tree of life, till he could be prepared for it by Ck>d's righteousness. 
Redemption and resurrection not only restore that which was lost, but give what man 
was originally created to attain : lOor. 15: 45 — "Tboflrtt man idim baoune a HTing aool. Tlwlastima 
Adam baoam« a lif»-f;iTing gpirit" ; R«t. 22 : 14— "BlMNd an thej that vaih thair nb«i^ that th«j may hava the 
righttooom«tothetrMofli&" * 

The conclusions we have thus reached with regard to the incidents of 
man's original state are combated upon two distinct grounds : 

1st. The facts bearing upon man's prehistoric condition point to a 
development from primitive savagery to civilization. Among these facts 
may be mentioned the succession of implements and weapons from stone 
to bronze and iron ; the polyandry and communal marriage systems of the 
lowest tribes ; the relics of barbarous customs still prevailing among the 
most civilized. 

For the theory of an originally savage condition of man, see Sir John Lubbock, 
Prehistoric Times, and Origin of Civilization : ** The primitive condition of mankind 
was one of utter barbarism " ; but especially L. H. Morgan, Ancient Society, who 
divides human progress into three great periods, the savage, the barbarian, and the 
civilized. Each of the two former has three states, as follows: L Savage: 1. Lowest 
state, marked by attainment of speech and subsistence upon roots. 2. Middle state, 
marked by flsh-food and fire. 8. (Jpper state, marked by use of the bow and hunting. 
II. Barbarian : 1. Lower state, marked by invention and use of pottery. 2, Middle 
state, marked by use of domestic animals, maize, and building stone. 8. Upper state, 
marked by invention and use of iron tools. III. Civilized man next appears, with the 
introduction of the phonetic alphabet and writing. J. S. Stuart-Glennie, Gontemp. 
Rev., Dec. 1802 : 844, defines civilization as "enforced social organizatiOD, with written 
records, and hence Intellectual development and social progress." 

With regard to this view we remark : 

( a ) It is based upon an insufficient induction of facts. — History shows a 
law of degeneration supx>lementing and often counteracting the tendency 
to development. In the earliest times of which we have any record, we 
find nations in a high state of civilization ; but in the case of every nation 
whose history runs back of the Ohristian era — as for example, the Bomans^ 



528 AXTHROPOLOGT, OR THE DOCTRIST OF MA3f. 

ihf: Gre^kjs the Egr-f^iaas— the snbseqTient piv.^resB h^s been dovnwBzd, 
a&rl n/^ iiiuxozi u known to hjive reooTered from bulMinsm except as the 
remit of infloenoe from withoaL 



LuUMck K«infl to admit that fnnitialbgn was not primeraJ ; yet be shows a genend 
terwl^A/^ to tAk« every brutal cittt^^maaaaample of man's dm state. And thia» in spite 
of tlK; fact tikat many such ciunoms liave Usen the resuh of corruptioa. BrideH^atching^ 
fr/r example, oouid not pocHlbly liave been primeval, in the strict sense of that term. 
Tf lor. Primitive Culture, 1 : 44, presents a far more moderate view. He favon a theory 
of de%'elopm«mt, but with deireneration '^ss a secondary action largely and deeply 
utttsctintf the <!k;%'elopment of civilization." So the Dulce of ArsryO, Unity of Nature: 
^Civilization and sa«-agery are both the results of evolutionary development; but the 
one is a dffVHUjpmtmt in the upward, the latter in the downward direction ; and for this 
reasr^n, wither civilization nor savagery can rationally be looked upon as the primitive 
orjnditlr>n of man." Shedd, Dogm. TheoL, 1 : 487 — ** As plausible an argument might 
be instructed out of the deterioration and degradation of some of the human family 
to prr>ve that man may have e\'oU-ed downward into an anthropoid ape, as that which 
has boen constructed Ut prove that he has been evolved upward from one.** 

M^Klem nations fall far short of the old Greek perception and expression of beauty. 
Morlfrm Egyptians, Bushmen, Australians, are unquestionably degenoate races. See 
Lank«.«ter, iN^.'neration. The same is true of Italians and Spaniards, as well as of 
Turks. Abyssf nians are now polygamists, though their ancestors were Christians and 
mom^gamiflts. The physical degt'neration of portions of the population of Ireland is 
well known. See Mi van, Lessons from Nature, 146-100, who applies to the savag<a- 
th<;ory the tr«ts of language, morals, and religion, and who quotes Herbert Spencer as 
saying : ** Prr>tjably rarjst of tbem [savages], if not all of them, had ancestors in higher 
states, anfl among their beliefs remain some which were evolved during those higher 
statr^s .... It is quite possible, and I believe highly probable, that retrogression has 
\jtsim as frerjuent as progression." Spencer, however, denies that savagery is always 
caused by lajise from civilization. 

Ilib. Sac., 6:7I5;29:2H2 — ^Manasamoral being does not tend to rise but to fall, and 
that with a gfXimc^ric progress, except he be elevated and sustained by some force from 
without and alMvo hiinsf;lf. While man once dviliwd may advance, yet moral ideas are 
apfwrently never developed from within." Had savagery been man*8 primitive oon- 
ditioD, ho never ctmUl have emerged. See Whately, Origin of Civilization, who main- 
tains that man weeded not only a divine Creator, but a divine Instructor. Seelye, 
Intrcxl, U) A Cf.*ntury of Dishonor, 8— *' The first missionaries to the Indians in Canada 
UH)k. with them skilled lat)orers to teach the savages how to till their fields, to provide 
them with cr>mfortablc homes, clothing, and food. But the Indians preferred their 
wigwams, skins, raw flesh, and filth. Only as Christian influences taught the Indian 
his inner need, and how this was to be supplied, was he led to wish and work for the 
improvement of his outward condition and habits. Civilization does not reproduce 
itsr^lf. It must first be kindled, and it can then be kept alive only by a power genuinely 
Christian." So Walhioe, In Nature, Sept. 7, 1876, voL 14 : 40&-413. 

Griffith-Jones, Ascent through Christ, 141^168, shows that evolution does not neces> 
sarily involve development as regards particular races. There is degeneration in all 
the organic orders. As regards man, ho may be evolving in some directions, while in 
others he lias degenerated. Lldgctt, Spir. Principle of the Atonement, 246, speaks of 
** Prof. ClilTonl as pointing to the history of human progress and declaring that man- 
kind is a risen and not a fallen race. There is no real contradiction between these 
two views. Ood has not let man go because man has rebelled against him. Where 
sin at>oun(lfHl, gnuro did much more abound." The humanity which was created in 
Christ and which is upheld by his power has ever received reinforcements of its physi- 
cal and mentul life, in spito of its moral and spiritual deterioration. ** Some shrimps, 
by the adjustment of their bo<Uly parts, go onward to the higher structure of the 
lobsters and crabs ; while others, taking up the habit of dwelling in the gills of fishes, 
sink downward into a state closely resembling that of the worms." Drummond, 
AHoent of Man : " When a boy's kite comes down in our garden, we do not hold that 
it originally ciune from the clouds. So nations went up, before they came down. 
There is a national gravitation. The stick age preceded the stone age, but has been 
lost." Tennyson : '' Evolution ever climbing after some ideal good, And Reversion 
ever dragging Evolution in the mud.'* Evolution often becomes devolution, if not 



INCIDENTS OF HAN'S ORIGINAL STATE. 529 

deyllution. A. J. Gordon, Ministrj of the Spirit, 104— ** The Jordan is the nWng 
QTmboi of our natural life, rising in a lofty elevation, and from pure springs, but 
plungrinflr steadily down till it pours itself into that Dead Sea from which there is no 
outlet." 

(6) Later inyestigations have rendered it probable that the stone age 
of some localities was contemporaneous with the bronze and iron ages of 
others, while certain tribes and nations, instead of making progress from 
one to the other, were never, so far back as we can trace them, without 
the knowledge and use of the metak. It is to be observed, moreover, that 
even without such knowledge and use man is not necessarily a barbarian, 
though he may be a child. 

On the question whether the arts of civilization can be lost, see Arthur BCitohell, Past 
in the Present, 219 : Kude art is often the debasement of a higher, instead of being- the 
earlier ; the rudest art in a nation may oo&dst with the highest ; cave-life may accom- 
pany high civilization. Illustrations from modem Scotland, where burial of a cock 
for epilepsy, and sacrifice of a bull, were until very recently extant. Certain arts 
have unquestionably been lost, as glass-making and iron- working in Assyria (see 
Mivart, referred to above ). The most ancient men do not appear to have been inferior 
to the latest, either physically or intellectually. Bawllnson : ^* The explorers who have 
dug deep into the Mesopotamian mounds, and have ransacked the tombs of Egypt, 
have come upon no certain traces of savage man in those regions which a wide-spread 
tradition makes the cradle of the human race.*' The Tyrolese peasants show tiiat a 
rude people may be moral, and a very simple people may be highly inteUlgent. See 
Southall, Recent Origin of Man, 386-449 ; Schllemann, Troy and her Remains, 274. 

Mason, Origins of Invention, 110, IZi, 128— ** There is no evidence that a stone age 
ever existed in some regions. In Africa, Canada, and perhaps Michigan, the metal age 
was as old as the stone age.** An illustration of the mathematical powers of the savage 
is given by Rev. A. B. Hunt in an account of the native arithmetic of Murray Islands, 
Torres Straito. **Netat*' (one) and *'neis"'(two) are the only numerals, higher 
numbers being described by combinations of these, as '* neis-netat " for three, ** neis-i- 
neis '* for four, etc., or by reference to one of the fingers, elbows or other parts of the 
body. A total of thirty-one could be counted by the latter method. Beyond this all 
numbers were ** many,** as this was the limit reached in counting before the introduc- 
tion of English numerals, now in general use in the islands. 

Shaler, Interpretation of Nature, 171 — ** It is commonly supposed that the direction 
of the movement [in the variation of species] is ever upward. The fact is on the 
contrary that in a large number of cases, perhaps in the aggregate in more than half, 
the change gives rise to a form which, by all the canons by which we determine 
relative rank, ie to be regarded as regressive or degradationaL .... Species, genera, 
families, and orders have all, like the individuals of which they are composed, a period 
of decay in which the gain won by infinite toil and pains is altogether lost in the old 
age of the group." Shaler goes on to say that in the matter of variation successes are 
to failures as 1 to 100,000, and if man be counted the solitary distinguished success, 
then the proportion is something like 1 to 100,000,000. No species that passes away is 
ever reinstated. If man were now to disappear, there is no reason to believe that by 
any process of change a similar creature would be evolved, however long the animal 
kingdom continued to exist. The use of these successive chances to produce man is 
Inexplicable except upon the hypothesis of an infinite designing Wisdom. 

( c ) The barbarous cnstoms to which this view looks for support may 
better be explained as marks of broken-down civilization than as relics of 
a primitive and universal savagery. Even if they indicated a former state 
of barbarism, that state might have been itself preceded by a condition of 
comparative culture. 

Mark Hopkins, in Princeton Rev. Sept., 1882: 194— ** There is no cruel treatment of 

females among animals. If man came from the lower animals, then he cannot have 

been originally savage ; for you find the most of this cruel treatment among savages.'* 

Tylor instances ** street Arabs.*' He compares street Arabs to a ruined bouse, but 

84 



530 AKTHROPOLOGY^ OR THE DOCTRIKE OF KAN. 

savage triboe to a builder's yard. See Duke of Argyll, Primeval Man, 129, 193; Biub- 
ncll. Nature and the SuiKTuatural, 23:) : McLennan, Studies in Ancient History. Guliok« 
in nib. Sac., July, 189*J : 517 -^ *' Cannibalism and infanticide are unknown among the 
anthropoid aixjs. TlK>se must be the results of dc^^ndation. Pirates and slavetraderB 
are not men of low and abortive intelligence, but men of education who deliberately 
throw off all restraint, and who use their (>ower8 for the destruction of society.*' 

Keano, Man, I'list and Present, 40, quotes Sir H. H. Johnston, an administrator who 
has had a wider experionoe of the natives of Africa than any man living, assaj'ingtbAt 
** the tendency of the n(>trro for several centuries past has been an actual retrograde 
one— return toward the savage and even the brute. If he had been cut off from the 
immigratitm of the Arab and the European, the purely Negroid races, left to them- 
selvfv, so far from advancing towards a higher type of humanity, might have actually 
reverted by degrees to a t}'pe no longer human.** Batzel's History of Mankind : ** We 
addign no great antiquity to Polynesian civilization. In New Zealand it is a matter of 
only some centuries back. In newly occupied territories, the development of the 
population lK*gan ui>on a higher level and then fell off. The Maoris* decadence resulted 
in the rapid impoverishment of culture, and the character of the people became more 
savage and orucL Captain Cook found objects of art worshiped by the descendants of 
those who produced them.'* 

Uecont researches have entirely discredited L. H. Morgan's theory of an original 
brutal promiscuity of the human race. Uitchio, Darwin and Hegel, 6, note— "The 
theory of an original promiscuity is rendered extremely doubtful by the habits of many 
of the higher animals.** E. H. Tylor, in 19th Century, July, 1906— ''A sort of family life, 
lusting for the sake of the young, beyond a single pairing season, exists among the 
higher manlike apes. The mule gorilla kc>ei)s wat^^h and ward over his progeny. He is 
the antetypo of the house-father. The matriarchal system is a later device for politi- 
cal reasons, to bind together in peace and alliance tribes that would otherwise be hos- 
tile. But it is an artifleial system introduced as a substitute for and in opposition to 
the natural paternal system. When the social pressure is removed, the matcmallaed 
husband emancipates himself, and paternalism begins.** Westermarck, History of 
Human Marriage : *' Marriage and the family are thus intimately connected with one 
another ; it is for the benefit of the young that male and female continue to live together. 

Marriage is therefore rooted In the family, rather than the family in marriage 

There is not a shred of genuine evidence for the notion that promiscuity ever formed 
a general stage in the social history of mankind. The hypothesis of promiscuity, 
instead of belonging to the close of hypotheses which are scientifically permissible, has 
no real foundation, and is essentially unsciontifle.'* Howard, History of Matrimonial 
Institutions : '* Marriage or pairing between one man and one woman, though the 
union be often transitory and the rule often violated, is t':3 typical form of sexual 
imion from the infancy of the human race.*' 

(d) The well-nigh nniversal tradition of a golden age of yirtue and 
happiness may bo most easily explained upon the Scripture view of an 
actual creation of the race in holiness and its subsequent apostasy. 

For references in classic writers to a golden age, see Luthordt-, Compendium dor 
Dogmatlk, 115; Pfleiderer, Philos. Religion, 1 :305— ** In Hoslod wo have the legend of 
a golden age under the lordship of Chronos, when man was free from cares and toils, 
in untroubled youth and cheerfulness, with a superabundance of the gifts which the 
earth furnished of itself ; the race was indeed not immortal, but it experienced death 
even as a soft sleep.** We may add that capacity for religious truth depends upon 
moral conditions. Very early races therefore have a purer faith than the later ones. 
Increasing depravity mokes it harder for the later generations to exercise fftith. 
The wisdom-literature may have been very early instead of ver}' late, Just as monothe- 
istic ideas are clearer the further wo go back. Blxby, Crisis in Morals, 171—** Precisely 
because such tribes [ Australian and African savages] have been deficient in average 
moral quality, have they failed to march upward on the road of civilization with the 
rest of mankind, and have fallen into these bog holes of savage degradation.*' On 
I>etrlfied ci\ilizations, see Henry George, Progress and Poverty, 433-439— ** The law of 
human progress, what is it but the moral law?** On retrogressive development In 
nature, see Weismann, Heredity, 2 : 1-<V). But see also Mary E. Case, ** Did the Romans 
Degenerate?** in Intornat. Joum. Ethics, Jan. 1893 : 16&-182, in which it is maintained 
that the Bomans made constant advances rather. Henry SumDer Maine oaUs the Bible 



INCIDENTS OP MAN'S ORIGINAL STATE. 631 

the moet Important single document in tho history of sociolo^, because it exhibits 
authenticaliy the early deveiopment of society from tho family, throu^rh the tribe. 
Into the nation,— a proipress learned only by glimpses, intervals, and survivals of old 
usages in the literature of other nations. 

2iid. That the religions history of mankind warrants ns in inferring a 
necessary and nniversal law of progress, in accordance with which man 
passes from fetiohism to polytheism and monotheism, — this first theologi- 
cal stage, of which fetichism, polytheism, and monotheism are parts, being 
succeeded by the metaphysical stage, and that in turn by the positive. 

This theory is propounded by Comte, in his Positive Philosophy, Enerlish transl., 25, 
26, 615-636— ** Each branch of our knowledge passes successively through three different 
theoretical conditions : the Theological, or fictitious ; the Metaphysical, or abstract ; 
and the Scientific, or positive. .... The first is the necessary point of departure of the 
human understanding ; and the third is its fixed and definite state. The second is merely 
a state of transition. In the theologrical state, the human mind, seeking the essential 
nature of beings, the first and final causes, the origin and purpose, of all effects — in 
short, absolute knowledge — supposes all phenomena to be produced by the immediate 
action of supernatural beings. In the metaphysical state, which is only a modification 
of the first, the mind supposes, instead of supernatural beings, abstract forces, verit- 
able ^itities, that is, personified abstractions, inherent in all beings, and capable of pro- 
ducing all phenomena. What is called the explanation of phenomena is, in this stage, 
a mere reference of each to its proper entity. In the final, the positive state, the mind 
has given over the vain search after absolute notions, the origrin and destination of the 
universe, and the causes of phenomena, and applies itself to the study of their laws — 

that is, their invariable relations of succession and resemblance The theological 

system arrived at its highest perfection when it substituted the providential action of 
a single Being for the varied operations of numerous divinitioe. In the last stage of 
the metaphysical system, men substituted one grreat entity. Nature, as the cause of all 
phenomena, instead of the multitude of entities at first supposed. In the same way the 
ultimate perfection of the positive system would be to represent all phenomena as par- 
ticular aspects of a single general fact— such as Gravitation, for instance.*' 

This assumed law of progress, however, is contradicted by the following 
&cts: 

(a) Not only did the monotheism of the Hebrews precede the great 
polytheistic systems of antiquity, but even these heathen religions are 
purer from polytheistic elements, the further back we trace them ; so that 
the facts point to an original monotheistic basis for them alL 

The gradual deterioration of all religions, apart from special revelation and influence 
from God, is proof that the purely evolutionary theory is defective. The most natural 
supposition is that of a primitive revelation, which little by little receded from human 
memory. In Japan, Shinto was originally the worship of Heaven. The worship of the 
dead, the deification of the Mikado, etc., were a corruption and aftergrowth. The 
Mikado's ancestors. Instead of coming from heaven, came from Korea. Shinto was 
originally a form of monotheism. Not one of the first emperors was deified after 
death. Apotheosis of the Mikados dated from the corruption of Shinto through the 
importation of Buddhism. Andrew Lang, in his Making of Religion, advocates primi- 
tive monotheism. T. G. Pinches, of the British Museum, 1894, declares that, as in the 
earliest Egyptian, so in the early Babylonian records, there is evidence of a primitive 
monotheism. Nevlns, Demon-Possession, 170-173, quotes W. A. P. Martin, President of 
the Peking University, as follows : ** China, India, Egypt and Greece all agree in the 
monotheistic type of their early religrion. The Orphic Hymns, lon^ before the advent of 
the popular divinities, celebrated the PanDicos, the universal God. The odes compiled 
by Confucius testify to the early worship of Sbangte, the Supreme Ruler. The Vedas 
speak of * one unknown true Being, all-present, ail-powerful, the Creator, Preserver 
and Destroyer of the Universe.* And in Egypt^as late as the time of Plutarch, there 
were still vestiges of a monotheistic worship." 

On the evidences of an original monotheism, see Blax Mtiller, Chips, 1 : 337 ; Rawlinson, 
In PKsaent Day Tracts, 2 : no. 11 ; Legge, Religions of China, 8, 11 ; Diestel, in Jahrbuch 



S32 ANTHROPOLOGY, OR THE DOCTRIXB OF VAN. 

fOr dfotwhe Tbeolofrie. l^«k, and vol. 5 : CAP; PhUip Smithy Anc. Hist, of 
Warn.'n, on the Earliest Creed of Mankind, in the Met h. Quar. Bev., Jan. 1684. 

{fj) ** There is no proof that the IndivOermanie or Semitic stocks 
piBctioed fetich worship, or were ever enslaved by the lowest types of mytli- 
ological religion, or ascended from them to somewhat higher *' ( Fisher )• 

See Fisher, EsnijrB on Sapemat. Ori«riii of Christianity, 545; Butlett, Sources of His- 
tory in the Pentateuch, 38-115. Herbert Spencer oooe held that fetichisni was primor- 
diaL But he afterwards changed his mind, and said tliat the facts pro^'Od to be 
exactly the opposite when he had become better acquainted with the ideas of savages ; 
see his Principles of Sociology. 1 : 3I3L Mr. Spencor flnally traced the beirinnings ol 
religion to the worship of ancestors. But in China no ancestor has ever become a god : 
see Hill, Genetic Philosophy, 304-313. And unless man had an inborn sense of divinlty 
lie could deify neither anct>stors nor ghosts. ProfcsBor Hilprecht of Philadelphia says 
** As tlie attempt has recently been made to trace the pure monotheism of Israel to 
Babylonian sources, I am bound to declare this an alisolute impossibiiity, on the basis 
of my fourteen years' rescarclies in Babylonian cuneiform inscriptions. The faith of 
Israel's chosctn people is : * Hear, O Israel : the Lord our God is one Lord.' And this 
faith could never have proceeded from the Babylonian mountain of gods, that charnel- 
house full of corruption and dead men's bones." 

( ) Borne of the earliest remains of man yet found show, by the bniial 
of fooil and weajjons with the dead, that there already existed the idea of 
s])iritual beings and of a future state, and therefore a religion of a higher 
sort than f etichism. 

Idolatry pn>per regards the idol as the symbol and representative of a spiritual being 
who exists apart from the material object, though he oianiftets himself through it. 
Fetichism, however, idcnUflc>s the diWoity with the material thing, and worships the 
stock or stone ; spirit is not conceived of as existing apart from body. Belief in spirit- 
ual beings and a future state is therefore proof of a religion higher in kind than f etich- 
ism. See Lyell, Antiquity of Man, quoted in Dawsoa, Story of Earth and Man, 834 ; 
see also 308, 372, 380—** Man's capacities for degradation are commensurate with his 
capacities for improvement " ( Dawson ). L>x*ll, in his last edition, however, admits 
the ovidenoe from the Aurignac cave to be doubtf uL See art. by Dawkins, in Nature, 
4:308. 

id) The theory in question, in making theological thought a merely 

transient stage of mental evolution, ignores the fact that religion has its root 

in the intuitions and yearnings of the human soul, and that therefore no 

philosox)hical or scientific progress can ever abolish it. While the terms 

theological, metax>hysical, and positive may properly mark the order in 

which the ideas of the individual and the race are acquired, positivism errs 

in holding tliat these three phases of thought are mutually exclusive, and 

that uix)n the rise of the later the earlier must of necessity become extinct. 

John Stuart Mill suggests that " personifying " would be a much better term than 
** theological " to designate the earliest efforts to explain phjrsical phenomena. On the 
fundamental principles of Positivism, see New Englander, 1873:323-386; Diman, The- 
iBtic Argument, 338—" Three coexistent states are here confounded with three succes- 
sive stages of human thought; three aspects of things with three epochs of time. 
Theology, metaphysics and science must always exist side by side, for all positive 
science rt>stB on metaphysical principles, and theology lies behind both. All are as per- 
manent as human reason itself." Martineau, Types, 1 : 487 — '' Comte sets up mediaeval 
Oiristianity as the typical example of evolved monotheism, and develops it out of the 
GriHik and Uomun polytheism which it overthrew and dissipated. But the religion of 
modern Europe notoriously does not descend from the same source as its civilization 
and is no continuation of the ancient culture," — it conies rather from Hebrew sources ; 
EHsuys, Phllos. and Theol., 1 : 24, 62—" The Jews were alwa>'s a disobliging people ; what 
bufliness had they to be up so early ii^ the morning, disturbing the house ever so long 
iM'fore M. Comt<;*s bell rang to prayers? " See also Glllett, God in Human Thought, 
1:17-23; Itawlinson, in Joum. Christ. Philos., April, 1883:368; Nineteenth Centuiy, 
Oct. 1886:473-490. 




CHAPTER IIL 
Sm, OR MAN'S STATE OF APOSTASY. 



SECmOK I. — THE LAW OP GOD. 

As preliininarj to a treatment of man's state of apostasy, it becomes 
necessary to consider the nature of that law of God, the transgression of 
which is sin. We may best approach the subject by inquiring what is the 
true conception of 

L Law in General. 
1. Law is an expression of unlL 

The essential idea of law is that of a general expression of will enforced 
by power. It implies : ( a ; A lawgiver, or authoritatiye wilL ( 6 ) Sub- 
jects, or beings upon whom this will terminates. ( c ) A general command, 
or expression of this wilL ( ^ ) A power, enforcing the command. 

These elements are found even in what we call natural law. The phrase 
' law of nature ' involves a self-contradiction, when used to denote a mode 
of action or an order of sequence behind which there is conceived to be no 
intelligent and ordaining wilL Physics derives the term ' law ' from juris- 
prudence, instead of jurisprudence deriving it from physics. It is first 
used of the relations of voluntary agents. Causation in our own wills 
enables us to see something besides mere antecedence and consequence in 
the world about ua Physical science, in her very use of the word *law,* 
implicitly confesses that a supreme Will has set general rules which control 
the processes of the universe. 

Wayland. Moral Soienoe, 1, unwisely defines law as '* a mode of existence or order of 
sequence.*' thus leaving out of his definition all reference to an ordainin^r will. He 
subsequently says that law presupposes an establisher, but in his definition there is 
nothing to indicate this. We insist, on the other hand, that the term 'law' itself 
includes the idea of force and cause. The word * law * is from May ' ( German legen ), «- 
something laid down ; German Qeaetz, from setzen, « something set or established ; 
Greek ytf/Mv , from Wft«, — something assigned or apportioned ; Latin lex, from lego, * 
something raid or spoken. 

All these derivations show that man's original conception of law is that of something 
proceeding from volition. Lewes, in his Problems of Life and Mind, says that the term 
* law ' is so suggestive of a giver and impreescr of law, that it ought to be dropped, and 
the word ^ method * substituted. The merit of Austin's treatment of the subject is that 
he ** rigorously limits the term * law * to the commands of a superior " ; see John Austin, 
Province of Jurisprudence, 1 : 88-09, 290-223. The defects of his treatment wo shall note 
further on. 

J. 8. MiU : *' It is the custom, wherever they [ scientific men ] can trace regularity of 
any kind, to call the general proposition which expresses the nature of that regularity, 
a law ; as when in mathematics we speak of the law of the successive terms of a con- 
verging series. But the expression ' law of nature ' is generally employed by scientific 
men with a sort of tacit reference to the orifrlual sense of the word " law/ namely, the 
ezpseasion of the will of a superior — the superior in this case being the Ruler of the 

633 



d34 ▲STHBOPOI/>GT, OB THE DOCTROTE OF ItAJT. 



iiB±rene.*' Paler, KsL TteoloiT. cbap. 1—** It ii a p e iiaito n of lingTMgfi to 
ftDj lair as tbe clBciMit openuJre cauae of aajthioff. A law ptvaiippoaeB an acent ; this 
if <jn\j tbe m«jde aooordinirto which an ascot firooeeda; it impliei a power, for ft litiie 
ordfT moiaur^Dg to which that power acta. Without tUa agent, witboiit this power, 
which are both diatinct from itaelf, the hiw doea Dothinff.** ^'Quiscoetodietlpaoacna- 
t/j^mi'* ** Kuka do not fulfill tlifin a r J voa , any more than a atatnte-hook can qpeila 
riot "( Jfartin^aa, Typo. 1 : 367 ). 

Cliaiiea Darwin got the foffvatkn of natoral adectioo, not frcmi t^ 
planta and anlmala, but from Xalthus on Population ; aee hit Life and Letters, ToL I« 
aut/^biographical chapter. Ward, Natoralism and Agnosticism, 2: 918-SS—** The eoo- 
ecrptirm of natural law reata upon the analogy of ciril law." Ladd, PUloaophy of 
Knowledge, 333—** La wa are only the more or leaa frequently repeated and nnifonn 
modea of the beharior of thtaigB** ; Philoacphy of Mind, IS— '^To be, to aland In rela- 
ti'^n, to be aelf-actire, to act npon other being, to obey law, to be a cauae, to be a per- 
maoent anb)ect of statea, to be the same to-day aa yesterday, to be Identical, to beooeb 
— all these and all similar coooeptiooB, together with the ptootB that they are Talld for 
real beings, are aiBrmed of physical realities, or projected into them, only on a baalB of 
aelf-knowkedge, envisaging and affirming the reality of mind. Without peychologioal 
fohight and philosophical training, such terms or their equiralenta are meaningleaB In 
physics. And because wrlteia on physics do not In general hare thlB Insight and thia 
trainirjg, in spite of their utmost endeavon to treat pbysica as an empirical acienoe 
witliout metaphysics, they flouoder and blunder and contradict thcmaelrca hopelessly 
wlvrrievcr they touch upon fundamental matters." See President McGarvey's CriticlBm 
on James Lane Alien's Beign of Law : ^ It is not In the nature of law to reign. To 
rr-ign is an act which can be literally affirmed only of persona. A man may reign ; a 
G'yi may reign ; a devil may reign ; but a law cannot reign. If a law oonld reign, we 
should have no gambling in New York and no open saloons on Sunday. There would 
be no false swearing in courts of justice, and no dishonesty in politics. It is men who 
reign in these matters— the judges, the grand jury, the sheriff and the police. They 
may reign according to law. Law cannot reign even over those who are appointed to 
ez'xmte the law." 

2. Law is a general cxpression of wilL 

Tlio cbaracieriKtic of law is generalitj. It is addressed to sabstanoes or 
ipiitaouA in classes. Special legislation is oontiary to the tme theory of 
law. 

When the Saltan of Zanzibar orders his barber to be oeheaded because the latter has 
out his master, this order is not properly a law. To be a law it must read: **Bvery 
tiarber who cuts his majesty shall thereupon be decapitated.** EinvMA M Icefn^MiI — 
**Once is no custom." Dr. Schurman suggests that the word metA (Mahl) means 
originally time ( mal in einmal )• The measurement of time among ourselves is astro- 
nomical ; among our earliest ancestors it was gastronomical, and the reduplication 
mefiUime ■* the ding-dong of the dinner bell. The Shah of Persia once asked the Piinoe 
of Wales to have a man put to death in order that he might see the English method of 
execution. When the Prince told him that this was beyond his power, toe Shah wished 
to know what was the use of being a king if he could not kill people at his pleasure. 
Peter the Great suggested a way out of the difficulty. He desired to see keelhauling. 
When informed that there was no sailor liable to that penalty, he replied : ** That does 
not matter,— take one of my suite." Amos, Science of Law, 83, 34— ** Law eminently 
deals in general rules.*' It knows not persons or personality. It must apply to more 
than one ease. ^ The characteristic of law is generality, as that of morality is individual 
application." Special legislation is the bane of good government ; it does not properly 
fall within the province of the law-making power ; it savors of the caprice of despot- 
ism, which gives commands to each subject at will. Hence our more advanced politi- 
cal ooDstitutions check lobby influence and bribery, by prohibiting special legidatlon 
in all cases where general laws already exist. 

8. Law implies power to enforce. 

It is essential to the existence of law, that there be power to enforce. 
OilicrwiHO law becomes the expression of mere wish or advioe. Since 
physical substonoes and forces have no intelligence and no power to resisl^ 



LAW IK OEKEBAL. 535 

the f onr elements already meiitioned exhaast the implications of the term 
' law * as applied to nature. In the case of rational and free agents, how- 
ever, law implies in addition : {e) Duty or obligation to obey; and (/) 
Sanctions, or pains and penalties for disobedience. 

'* law that has no penalty fa not law but advloe, and the flrovemment in which infllo- 
tion does not follow transgrression is the relgu of rogrues or demons." On the question 
whether any of the punishments of civil law are legral sanctions, except the punish- 
ment of death, see N. W. Taylor, Moral Govt., 2:367-387. Rewards are motives, but 
they are not sanctions. Since public opinion may be conceived of as Inflictin^r penal- 
ties for violation of her will, we speak Qgruratively of the laws of society, of fashion, 
of etiquette, of honor. Only so far as the community of nations can and does by 
sanctions compel obedience, can we with propriety assert the existence of interna- 
tional law. Even amon^ nations, however, there may be moral as well as physical 
sanctions. The decision of an international tribunal has the same sanction as a treaty, 
and if the former is impotent, the latter also is. Fines and imprisonment do not 
deter decent people from violations of law half so effectively as do the social penalties 
of ostracism and disgrrace, and it will bo the same with the findings of an tntcma- 
tional tribunal. Diplomacy without ships and armies has been said to be law without 
penalty. But exclusion from civilized society is penalty. **In the unquestioning 
obedience to fashion's decrees, to which we all quietly submit, we are simply yielding 
to the prefBure of the persons about us. No one adopts a style of dress because it is 
reasonable, for the styles are often most unreasonable ; but we meeldy yield to the 
most absurd of thorn rather than resist this force and be called eccentric So what we 
call public opinion is the most mighty power to-day known, whether in society or in 
politics." 

4. Law expresses and demands nature. 

« 

The will which thus binds its subjects by commands and penalties is an 
expression of the nature of the governing power, and reveals the normal 
relations of the subjects to that power. Finally, therefore, law (^ ) Is an 
expression of the nature of the lawgiver ; and (h) Sets forth the condition 
or conduct in the subjects which is requisite for harmony with that nature. 
Any so-called law which fails to represent the nature of the governing 
power soon becomes obsolete. All law that is permanent is a transcript of 
the facts of being, a discovery of what is and must be, in order to harmony 
between the governing and the governed ; in short, positive law is just and 
lasting only as it is an expression and republication of the law of nature. 

Diman, Theistic Argument, 106. 107 : John Austhi, although he " rigorously limited 
the term law to the commands of a superior," yet ^* rejected Ulpian's explanation of the 
law of nature, and ridiculed as fustian the celebrated description in Hooker." This we 
conceive to be the radical defect of Austin's conception. The Will from which natural 
law proceeds is conceived of after a dcistic fashion, instead of being immanent in the 
universe. Lightwood, in his Nature of Positive Law, 78-90, criticizes Austin's definition 
of law as command, and substitutes the idea of law as custom. Sir Henry Maine's 
Ancient Law has shown us that the early village communities had customs which only 
gradually took form as definite laws. But we reply that custom is not the ultimate 
source of anything. Repeated acts of will are necessary to constitute custom. The 
first customs are due to the commanding will of the father in the patriarchal family. 
So Austin's definition is Justified. Collective morals (mores) come from individual 
duty ( due) ; law originates in will ; Martincau, Types, 2 : 18, 19. Behind this will, how- 
ever, is something which Austin does not take account of. namely, the nature of things 
as constituted by Gk>d, as revealing the universal Reason, and as furnishing the stand- 
ard to which all positive law, if it would be i)ermancnt, must conform. 

See Montesquieu, Spirit of Laws, book 1, sec. 14 — " Laws are the necessary relations 

arising from the nature of things There is a primitive Reason, and laws are the 

relations subsisting between it and different beings, and the relations of these to one 
another. . . . These rules are a fixed and invariable relation. . . . Particular intelligent 
beings may have laws of their own making, but they have some likewise that they 



JtMT3EMi9%Jai0^1L 1ft rZZ 3IKZSCKZ JW 




Jtj'rrUftMVtn;^ Lw.4ft: OL C Over, r iicr f< "^ 

tM^ jLmk ^iMtft /rw JUL LiraL «s«€ JE^Job: Sk 

mA unoMaif.jtutf Mw ixB0* LSft, IL G. lsr.i^iiBKi£ : '- 




II. TsE Lav <ir G^iD or PAKCKTi 

Tb^ htw f4 ^hfA M ft tKD0sal expnamoa of the dmae viS enlianed lij 
^fwx. It iw« tvo fom* : Ekmcntal Lev and PoatiTe 

L Kymn^ininl Ijmm^ or Isw rnvrcMiis^ into tiie fVmpntis 
M^ C^^/^sH '/f tiMr niif/Dtl a&d iRBlkAud crealkiii. This is twofold : 

A« Ti»0f nfxifnmdfm <A the dnine vill in the eonstitiztioD of the m ate riml 
mrlr^stti^; — thk m*s oiJl i^jiaed, or Dstaiml Imv. Fhjskal Isw is not 
fmt^Mmrj, httfAJta^ (fftUsr of things is oonceiTmble. FhTsicsl <»der is not 
nn irfi/l ill Hi^lf ; it <?xijftii for the sake of monJ order. Phjsicsl cvder has 
ikmr^^'/fh tfidy s relstiTe constsncj, and Qod sopplementB it at times by 

Ipfwti^., Tftiftfrf fft TbrfUirbt and Knowledge, 210— ** The laws of nature ic p ic s cu t no 
u^^f^lift fmt mnt t/nly the oitk^rJ j forms of procedure of some Being tnck of tbem. 
, ,, , iUmtnUi uotfonnf tlef are Q<k\*n methods in freedom.** Philoa. of Theism, 73—** Any 
«/f t^m isfmmUs lawi, f rrim sravf tation on, mtght conoetvably hare been lacking or alto- 
Utiitntr ^IffttrmtU «... No traorjof neoessitycanbefoundintheOosmosor initslaws.'* 
H«fih« f l<«<sltaiiiim and P«?nkinaJit j : ** Nature is not neoeanry. Why put an island 
wtnTfti It k, and n'H a mile east <tr west ? Why connect the smell and shape of the rose, 
or llm taiit4f arid <y;lor of the orange? Why do Ht O form water? No one knows." 
Wllllafn JnnuM : *' Tli«) (larts seem shot at us out of a pistoL" Rather, we would say, out 
of a shotgun. Manln«;au, Heat of Authority, 33—** Why undulations in one medium 
sli'/ijld pn>dtU5«i Nfiurid, and In another light; why one speed of vibration should give 
r«id I'olor, and ntufUuir blue, oan be explained by no reason of necessity. Here is select- 
ing will.*' 

llr'Niks, Koundatl/ms of Zoology, 139 — *' 80 far as the philosophy of evolution involves 
ImlliTf thfttnaturfiliidotitrmlnate, ordue to a necessary law of univeisal progress or 
4«voliilliffi, It NOffiiN U} mo to be utterly unsupported by evidence and totally unscion- 
f Ifln." Tliitni Is no powor to dodiioe anything whatever from homogeneity. Press the 
button and law dm^i the rest? Yes, but what presses the button ? The solution orys» 



V 



THE LA.W OF GOD IN PARTICULAR. 537 

teUaeswhen shaken? Yes, but what shakes it? Ladd, Philos. of Knowledge, 810— 
^The directions and velocltios of the stars fall under no common principles that 
astronomy can discover. One of the stars— * 1830 Groombridfire' — is flying through 
ipace at a rate many times as great as it could attain if it had fallen through infinite 

space through all eternity toward the entire physical universe Fluids contract 

when oocled and expand when heated,— yet there is the well known exception of 
water at the degree of freezing.'* 263 — ** Things do not appear to be mathematical all 
the way through. The system of things may be a life, changing its modes of manifes- 
tation according to immanent ideas, rather than a collection of rigid entities, blindly 
subject in a mechanical way to unchanging laws.*' 

Augustine : ** Dei voluntas rerum natura est." Joseph Cook : ** The laws of nature 
aie the habits of God.** But Campbell, Atonement, Introd., xzvi, says there is this 
difference between the laws of the moral universe and those of the physical, namely, 
that we do not trace the existence of the former to an act of will, as we do the latter. 
^ To say that God has given existence to goodness, as he has to the laws of nature, would 
be equivalent to saying that he has given existence to himself.** Pepper, Outlines of 
Syst. ThcoL, 91 — ** Moral law, unlike natural law, is a standard of action to be adopted 
or rejected in the exercise of rational freedom, i. e^ of moral agency." See also Shedd, 
Dogm. Theol., 1 : 63L 

Mark Hopkins, in Princeton Bev., Sept. 1883 : 190—" In moral law there is enforoeme n t 
by punishment only — never by power, for this would confound moral law with physi- 
cal, and obedience can never be produced or secured by power. In ph>'8ical law, on the 
contrary, enforcement is wholly by power, and punishment is impossible. So far as man 
is free, he is not subject to law at all, in its physical sense. Our wills are free from law, 
as enforced by jxnoer ; but are free wuler law, as enforced by punishmen t. Where law 
prevails in the same sense as in the material world, there can be no freedom. Law does 
not prevail when we roach the region of choice. We hold to a power in the mind of 
man originating a free choice. Two objects or courses of action, between which choice 
is to be made, are presupposed : ( 1 ) A uniformity or set of uniformities implying a 
force by which the uniformity is produced [ physical or natural law ] ; ( 2 ) A command, 
addressed to free and intelligent beings, that can be obeyed or disobeyed, and that has 
connected with it rewards or punishments " [moral law]. See also Wm. Arthur, Differ^ 
ence between Physical and Moral Law. 

B. The expression of the divine will in the oonstitntion of rational and 
free agents ; — this we call moral law. This elemental law of our moral 
nature, with wliich only we are now concerned, has all the characteristics 
mentioned as belonging to law in generaL It implies : (a ) A divine Law- 
giver, or ordaining WilL ( 6 ) Subjects, or moral beings ux)on whom the 
law terminates. ( c ) General command, or expression of this will in the 
moral constitution of the subjects, {d) Power, enforcing the command. 
(e) Duty, or obligation to obey. (/) Sanctions, or pains and penalties 
for disobedience. 

All these are of a loftier sort than are f onnd in hmnan law. But we need 
especially to emphasize the fact that this law (^) Is an expression of the 
moral nature of God, and therefore of God's holiness, the fundamental 
attribute of that nature ; and that it ( A ) Sets forth absolute conformity to 
that holiness, as the normal condition of man. This law is inwrought into 
man's rational and moral being. Man fulfills it, only when in his moral as 
well as his rational being he is the image of God. 

Although the will from which the moral law springs is an expression of the natoxe 
of God, and a necessary expression of that nature in view of the existence of moral 
beings, it is none the less a personal will. We should be careful not to attribute to law 
a personality of its own. When Plutarch says: **Law is king both of mortal and 
immortal beings," and when wo say : " The law will take hold of you," " The criminal 
is in danger of the law," we are simply substituting the name of the agent for that of 
the principal. God is not subject to law ; God is the eource of law ; and we may say; 
'* If Jehovah be (}od, worship him ; but if Law, worship it." 



638 ANTHROPOLOGY, OR TUB DOOTRIKB OP MAN. 

Since moral law merely reflects Gk>d, it is not a thin^r made. Men discover laws, bat 
tbey do not mahe them, any more than the chemist makes the laws by which the ele- 
ments combine. Instance the solidification of hydrogen at Geneva. Utility does not 
constitute law, althousrb we test law by utility ; see Murphy, Scientific Bases of Faith, 
58-71. The true nature of the moral law is set forth in the noble though rhetorical 
description of Hooker ( Eccl. Pol., 1 : 194 )—" Of law there can be no less acknowledged 
than that her seat is In the bosom of God; her voice the harmony of the world; all 
things in heaven and earth do her homage, the very least as feeling her care, and the 
greatest as not exempted from her power ; both angels and men, and creatures of what 
condition soever, though each in a different sort and manner, yet all with uniform 
consent admiring her as the mother of their peace and joy.*' See also Martineau, Types, 
2 : 119, and Study, 1 : 85. 

Curtis, Primitive Semitic Religions, 66, 101— ''The Oriental believes that God makes 
right by edict. Saladin demonstrated to Henry of Champagne the loyalty of his Assas- 
sins, by commanding two of them to throw themselves down from a lofty tower to 
certain and violent death." H. B. Smith, System, 193 — '' Will Implies personality, and 
personality adds to abstract truth and duty the element of authority. Law therefore 
has the force that a person has over and above that of an idea.** Human law forbids 
only those offences which constitute a broach of public order or of private right. God's 
law forbids all that Is an offence against the divine order, that is, aU that is unlike God. 
The whole law may be summed up in the words : " Bo like God.** Salter, First Steps in 
Philosophy, 101-126 — ** The realization of the nature of each being is the end to be 
striven for. Self-realization is an ideal end, not of one being, but of each being, with 
due regard to the value of each in the proper scale of worth. The beast can bo sacri- 
ficed for man. All men are sacred as capable of unlimited progress. It is our duty to 
realize the capacities of our nature so far as they are consistent with one another and 
go to make up one whole.*' This means that man fulfills the law only as he realizes the 
divine idea in his character and life, or, in other words, as he becomes a finite image of 
God's infinite perfections. 

Bixby, Crisis In MonUs, 191, 201, 285, 286— ** Morality is rooted in the nature of things. 
There is a universe. We are all parts of an infinite organism. Man is inseparably 
bound to man [ and to God ] . All rights and duties arise out of this common life. In 
the solidarity of social life lies the ground of Kant's law : So will, that the maxim of 
thy conduct may apply to all. The planet cannot safely fiy away from the sun, and 
the hand cannot safely separate itself from the heart. It is from the fundamental 
unity of life that our duties flow. . . . The infinite world-organism is the body and 
mani flotation of God. And when we recognize the solidarity of our vital being with 
this divine life and embodiment, we begin to see into the heart of the mystery, the 
unquestionable authority and supreme sanction of duiy. Our moral intuitions are 
simply the unchanging laws of the universe that have emerged to consciousness in the 
human heart. . . . The inherent principles of the universal Reason reflect themselves 
in the mirror of the moral nature. . . . The enlightened conscience is the expression in 
the human soul of the divine Consciousness. . . . Morality is the victory of the divine 
Life in us. . . . Solidarity of our life with the universal Life gives it unconditional 

sacredness and transcendental authority The microcosm must bring itself en 

rapport with the Macrocosm. Man must bring his spirit into resemblance to the World- 
essenoe, and into union with it.'* 

The law of God, then, is sunply an expression of the nature of God in the 
form of moral requirement, and a necessary expression of that nature in 
view of the existence of moral beings ( Ps. 19 : 7 ; c/. 1 ). To the existence 
of this law all men bear witness. The consciences even of the heathen tes- 
tify to it ( Bom. 2 : 14, 15 ). Those who have the written law recognize this 
elemental law as of greater compass and penetration ( Bom. 7 : 14 ; 8:4). 
The perfect embodiment and fulfillment of this law is seen only in Christ 
(Bom. 10:4; PhiL 8:8,9). 

Pi 19 : 7— "Th« Uw of Jehorah is perf6el» ratoring the tool** ; e/. wn 1 — "ThehMTOi dfldarethe glorjof Ood** 
■■ two revelations of God — one in nature, the other in the moral law. Bont 2 : 14, 15—" for 
irhoL Goitiles Uutt Iutb not the Uw do bj lutue the thicgs of the law, theaa, not haTing the Uw, are the Uw unto th«m- 
•elTes ; in that they show the work of the Uw written in their hearts, their eonseienoe bearing witness therewith, and 
their thoughts one with another seoamig or else exduing them" ~here the "work of the Uw" — , not the ten 



THB LAW OF GOD IK PARTICULAR. 539 

commandments, for of these the heathen were iernorant, but rather the work corres- 
pondiofiT to them, i. «., the subetanoo of them. Rom. 7 : 14 — " For va know that the law it ipiritud ** 
—this, says Meyer, is equivalent to saying *' its essence is divine, of like nature with the 
Holy Spirit who gave it, a holy self -re vclation of God.*' Ron. 8 : 4 — ** that the ordiiuiioe of the Uw 
■ighlbeftilfflled iBiii, who valk not after the fleih, bat after the Spirit"; 10:4~''rorChriatiitheendof thelaw 
unto ri^teouBeasto erery one that belieTelh " ; PhiL 3 : 8, 9~ "that I maj gain Christ, and be fimnd in him, not 
kaitBg a rigbteoQauBi of mine own, even that iridoh ie of tho law, bnt that which is through fidth in Qiriit, the right" 
eoiUBMii^iehiifram God byfiuth"; Eeb.lO:9--*'Lo^Iameometodothj will." In Christ **the law 
appears Drawn out in living characters.*' Just such as he was and is, we feel that we 
ought to be. Hence the character of Christ convicts us of sin, as does no other mani- 
festation of Gk>d. See, on the passages from Romans, the Commentary of Phlllppi. 

Fleming, Vocab. Philos., 286 —*' Moral laws are derived from the nature and will of 
God, and the character and condition of man." God's nature is reflected in the laws of 
our nature. Since law is inwrought into man's nature, man is a law unto himself. To 
conform to his own nature. In which conscience is supreme, is to conform to the nature 
of God. The law Is only the revelation of the constitutive principles of being, the decla- 
ration of what must be, so long as man is man and God is God. It says in effect : *^ Be 
like Gk)d, or you cannot be truly man." So moral law is not simply a test of obedience, 
but is also a revelation of eternal reality. Man cannot be lost to God, without being 
lost to himself . ^The'hand8oftheliTingGod'(Ieb.iO:31)into which we fall, are the laws of 
nature.'* In the spiritual world '* the same wheels revolve, only there is no iron " 
( Drummond, Natural Law In the Splritural World, 27 ). Wuttke, Christian Ethics, 2 : 
83-02 --•* The totality of created being is to be in harmony with God and with Itself. 
The idea of this harmony, as active in God under the form of will, is God's law." A 
manuscript of the U. S. Constitution was so written that when held at a little distance 
the shading of the letters and their position showed the countenance of George Wash- 
ington. So the law of God is only God*s face disclosed to human sight. 

R. W. Emerson, Woodnotes, 67 — " Conscious Law is King of kings." Two centuries 
ago John Norton wrote a book entitled The Orthodox Evangelist, " designed for the 
begetting and establishing of the faith which is in Jesus," in which we find the follow- 
ing : *^God doth not will things because they are just, but things are therefore Just 
because God so willeth them. What reasonable man but will yield that the being of 
the moral law hath no necessary connection with the being of God ? That the actions 
of men not conformable to this law should be sin, that death should be the punishment 
of sin, these are the constitutions of God, proceeding from him not by way of neci^^ity 
of nature, but freely, as effects and products of his eternal good pleasure." This is to 
make God an arbitrary despot. We should not say that God makes law, nor on the 
other hand that God is subject to law, but rather that God is law and the source of law. 

Bowne, Philos. of Theism, 161— **God*s law is organic— Inwrought into the consti- 
tution of men and things. The chart however does not make the channel. ... A law 
of nature is never the antecedent but the consequence of reality. What right has this 
oonsequenoe of reality to be personalized and made the ruler and source of reality? 
Law is only the fixed mode in which reality works. Law therefore can explain noth- 
ing. Only God, from whom reality springs, can explain reality." In other words, law 
is never an agent but always a method— the method of God, or rather of Christ who is 
the only Revealer of God. Christ's life in the flesh is the clearest manifestation of him 
who is the principle of law in the phjrsical and moral universe. Christ is the Reason 
of God in expression. It was he who gave the law on Mount Sinai at well as in the 
Sermon on the Mount. For fuller treatment of the subject, see Bowen, Metaph. 
and Ethics, 321-344; Talbot, Ethical Prolegomena, in Bap. Quar., July, 1877:257-274; 
Whewell, Elements of Morality, 2 : 35 ; and especially E. G. Robinson, Principles and 
Practice of Morality, 79-108. 

Each of the two last-mentioned charaoteristics of Gbd's law is important 
in its implications. We treat of these in their order. 

First, the law of God as a transcript of the divine nature. — If this be the 
nature of the law, then certain common misconceptions of it are ezdnded. 
The law of God is 

( a ) Not arbitrary, or the product of arbitrary "wilL Since the will from 
which the law springs is a revelation of God's nature, there can be no 
xaahneas or unwisdom in the law itself. 



540 ASTHBOPOLOGYy OB THB DOCTBINE OF HAK. 

E. G. Robinson, Christ. Theology, 198— **Ko law of Ood aeema over to have been 
arbitrarily enacted, or simply with a view to certain ends to beaooomplished ; it always 
represented some reality of life which it was inexorably necessary that those who were 
to be regulated should carefully observe." The theory that law orl^rinates in arbitrary 
will results In an effeminate type of piety, just as the theory that legislation has for its 
sole end the greatest happiness results in all manner of compromises of justice. Jones, 
Robert Browning, 43~ ** He who cheats his neighbor believes in tortuosity, and, as 
Oarlyle says, has the supreme Quaok for his god." 

(b) Not temporaiy, or ordained siinply to meet an exigency. The law 

is a manifestation, not of temporary moods or desires, but of the essential 

nature of Qod, 

The great speech of Sophocles' Antigone gives us this conception of law : ^ The ordi- 
nances of the gods are unwritten, but sure. Not one of them is for to-day or for 
yesterday alone, but they live forever." Moses might break the tables of stone upon 
which the law was inscribed, and JehoiaUm might cut up the scroll and cast it into the 
fire (1l 82: 19; Jar. 86: 23), but the law remained eternal as before in the nature of God 
and in the constitution of man. Prof. Walter Bausohenbusch : " The moral laws are 
Just as stable as the law of gravitation. Every fuzzy human chicken that is hatched 
Into this world tries to fool with those laws. Some grow wiser in the process and some 
do not. We talk about breaking God's laws. But after those laws have been broken 
several billion times since Adam first tried to play with them, those laws are still intact 
and no seam or fracture is visible in them,— not even a scratch on the enameL But 
the lawbreakers — that is another story. If you want to find their fragments, go to the 
ruins of Egypt, of Babylon, of Jerusalem ; study statistics ; read faces ; keep your eyes 
open ; visit Blackwcll's Island ; walk through the graveyard and read the invisible 
inscriptions left by the Angel of Judgment, for instance: * Here lie the fragments of 
John Smith, who contradicted his Maker, played football with the ten commandments, 
and departed this life at the age of thirty-five. His mother and wife weep for him. 
Nobody else does. May he rest in peace T " 

( G ) Not merely negative, or a law of mere prohibition, — sinoe positive 

oonf ormity to Qod is the inmost requisition of law. 

The negative form of the commandments in the decalogue merely takes for granted 
the evil inclination in men's hearts and practically opposes its gratification. In the 
case of each commandment a whole province of the moral life is taken into the 
account, although the act expressly forbidden is the acme of evil in that one province. 
So the decalogue makes itself intelligible : it crosses man's path just where he most 
feels inclined to wander. But back of the negative and specific expression in each 
case lies the whole mass of moral requirement : the thin edge of the wedge has the 
positive demand of holiness behind it, without obedience to which even the prohibition 
cannot in spirit be obeyed. Thus "the law is fpiritotl " ( Rom. 7 : 14 ), and requires likeness in 
character and life to the spiritual God ; Jokn 4:24— "God it spirit, and tkey that wihip kimmmt 
vonhip in ^t and tratk." 

(d) Not partial, or addressed to one part only of man's being, — sinoe 

likeness to God requires parity of substance in man's soul and body, as 

Trell as purity in all the thoughts and acts that proceed therefrom. As law 

proceeds from the nature of Gk)d, so it requires conformity to that nature 

in the nature of man. 

Whatever God gave to man at the beginning he requires of man with interest ; cf. Kai 
25:27— "thou ODghtaittkenfore to haTB pot mjmonej to the banker^ and at mj ooming I ihoold have noaTed back 
Bine ovn viUi interest" Whatever oomes short of perfect purity in soul or perfect health 
in body is non-conformity to God and contradicts his law, it being understood that 
only that perfection is demanded which answers to the creature's stage of growth and 
progress, so that of the child there is required only the perfection of the child, of the 
youth only the perfection of the youth, of the man only the perfection of the man. 
See Julius MUUer, Doctrine of Sin, chapter 1. 

( e ) Not outwardly published, — since all positive enactment in only the 
imperfect expression of this underlying and unwritten law of being. 



THE LAW OP GOD IK PARTICULAR. 641 

Much mlsunderstandiiiK of God*a law results from confounding it with published 
enactment. Paul takes the larger view that tbo law is independent of such expression ; 
8eeftaB.2:iil5--'*ibrii^n6«ntil«tkaihaT«iMtth«]AwdobjDataz«th«thi]igiflf Uielaw, Uuh notluTiiigtli* 
bv, an tk« Iaw onto thems«lT« ; in that tkej show th« vork of the law vrittao in thair hnrta, thair ooimianoa baaring 
vitaaM thanwith, and ihair thooghta ona with another aeeosing or aba axoosinf thfB : " see Expositor's Greek 
Testament, in loco : **'wTittan on thair haarta^' when contrasted with the law written on the 
tables of stone, is equal to * unwritten ' ; the Apostle refers to what the Greeks called 

(/) Not inwardly oonfldons, or limited in its scope by men's consdons- 
ness of it. Like the laws of oar physical being, the moral law exists 
whether we recognize it or not. 

Overeating brings its penalty in dyspepsia, whether we are conscious of our fault or 
not. We cannot by ignorance or by vote repeal the laws of our physical system. Self* 
will does not secure independence, any more than the stars can by combination abolish 
gravitation. Man cannot get rid of God*s dominion by denying its existence, nor by 
refusing submission to it. Pialm2:l-4— *'WhjdothanatiaiBraga . . . . agaiuk JahoTih .... ujiag, 
lat Of bnak thair bonda aaondar .... He that aittath in tha haarena will Ung h." Salter, First Steps in 
Philosophy, M — ** The fact that one is not aware of obligation no more aflFocts its real- 
ity than ignorance of what is at the centre of the earth affects the nature of what is 
really discoverable there. We discover obligation, and do not create it by thinking of 
it, any more than we create the sensible world by thinking of it." 

{g ) Not local, or confined to place, — since no moral creature can escape 
from God, from his own being, or from the natural necessity that nnlike- 
ness to God should involve misery and ruin. 

** The Dutch auction** was the public offer of property at a price beyond its value, 
followed by the lowering of the price until some one accepted it as a purchaser. 
There is no such local exception to the full validity of God's demands. The moral law 
has even more necessary and universal sway than the law of gravitation in the physical 
universe. It is inwrought into the very constitution of man, and of every other moral 
being. The man who offended the Roman Emperor found the whole empire a prison. 

(h) Not changeable, or capable of modification. Since law represents 
the unchangeable nature of God, it is not a sliding scale of requirements 
which adapts itself to the ability of the subjects. Qod himself cannot 
change it without ceasing to be God. 

The law, then, has a deeper foundation than that God merely ** said so." God*s word 
and God's will are revelations of his inmost being ; every transgression of the law is a 
stab at the heart of Gk>d. Simon, Reconciliation, 141, 143— ^* God continues to demand 
loyalty oven after man has proved disloyal. Sin changes man, and man*s change 
involves a change in God. Man now regards God as a ruler and exactor, and God must 
regard man as a defaulter and a rebel." God's requirement is not lessened because 
man is unable to meet it. This inability is Itself non-conformity to law, and is no 
excuse for sin ; see Dr. Bushnell's sermon on ** Duty not measured by Ability.*' The 
man with the withered hand would not have been justified in refusing to stretch it 
forth at Jesus' command ( Mat 12 : 10-13 ). 

The obligation to obey this law and to be conformed to God's perfect moral character 
is based upon man's original ability and the gifts which God bestowed upon him at the 
beginning. Created in the image of God, it is man's duty to render back to God that 
which God first gave, enlarged and improved by growth and culture ( Luke 19 : 23 — " vh«r»- 
fore garvst thou not mj monej into the bank, and I at mj ooming ahoold bare required it vith interest " ). This 
obligation is not impaired by sin and the weakening of man's powers. To let down the 
standard would be to misrepresent God. Adolphe Monod would not save himself from 
shame and remorse by lowering the claims of the law : *' Save first the holy law of my 
God," he says, " after that you shall save me I " 

Even salvation is not through violation of law. The moral law is immutable, because 
it is a transcript of the nature of the immutable God. Shall nature conform to me, or 
I to nature? If I attempt to resist even physical laws, I am crushed. I can use nature 
only by obeying her laws. Lord Bacon : '* Natura enim non nisi parendo vlnoitur." So 



542 ANTHBOPOLOOT, OB THE DOCTBIKB OF HAK. 

in the moral realm. We cannot Iray off nor escape the moral law of God. Ood will not, 
and God can not, change his law by one hair's breadth, even to save a universe of sinners. 
Omar Khiyy^Lm, in his Bubdiyat, begs his god to ** reconcile the law to my desires.*^ 
Marie Ck>re]U says well : ** As if a gnat should seek to build a cathedral, and should ask 
to have the laws of architecture altered to suit its gnat-like capacity." See Martineau, 
Types,2:iaO. 

Secondly, the law of GK>d as the ideal of hninan nature. — A law thus 
identical with the eternal and necessary relations of the creatore to the 
Creator, and demanding of the creature nothing less than perfect holiness, 
as the condition of harmony with the infinite holiness of €k>d, is adapted 
to man's finite nature, as needing law ; to man's free nature, as needing 
moral law ; and to man's progressiye nature, as needing ideal law. 

Man, as Unite, needs law, just as railway cars need a track to guide them ~ to leap 
the track is to find, not freedom, but ruin. Bailway President : '* Our rules are written 
in blood." Goethe, Was Wir Bringen, 19 Auf tritt : *' In vain shall spirits that are all 
unbound To the pure heights of perfectness aspire; In limitation first the Master 
shines. And law alone can give us liberty."— Man, as a free being, needs moral law. 
He is not an automaton, a 'creature of necessity, governed only by physical influences. 
With conscience to command the right, and will to choose or reject it, his true dignity 
and calling are that he should freely realize the right.— Man, as a progressive being, 
needs nothing less than an ideal and infinite standard of attainmrait, a goal which he 
can never overpass, an end which shall ever attract and urge him forward. This he 
finds in the holiness of God. 

The law is a fenccj not only for ownership, but for care. God not only demands, but 
he protects. Law is the transcript of love as well as of holiness. We may reverse the 
well-known couplet and say : ** I slept, and dreamed that life was Duty; I woke and 
found that life was Beauty." ** Cui servire rcgnare est." Butcher, Aspects of Greek 
Genius, 56— ** In Plato's Crito, the Laws are made to present themselves in person to 
Socrates in prison, not only as the guardians of his liberty, but as his lifelong friends, 
his well-wishers, his equals, with whom he had of his own free will entered into binding 
compact.** It does not harm the scholar to have before him the ideal of perfect scholar- 
ship ; nor the teacher to have before him the ideal of a perfect school ; nor the legisla- 
tor to have before him the ideal of perfect law. Gordon, The Christ of To-day, 134— 
^ The moral goal must be a flying goal ; the standard to which we are to grow must 
be ever ridng ; the type to which we are to be conformed must have in it inexhaust- 
ible fulness." 

John Caird, Fund. Ideas of Christianity, 2 : 119 — ** It is just the best, purest, noblest 
human souls, who are least satisfied with themselves and their own spiritual attain- 
ments ; and the reason is that the human is not a nature essentially different from the 
divine, but a nature which, just because it is in essential affinity with God, can be satis- 
fled with nothing less than a divine perfection." J. M. Whiton, The Divine Satisfac- 
tion : " Law requires being, character, likeness to God. It is automatic, self-operating. 
Penalty is untransferable. It cannot admit of any other satlsftiction than the re^stab- 
lishment of the normal relation which it requires. Punishment proclaims that the 
law has not been satisfied. There is no cancelling of the curse except through the 
growing up of the normal relation. Blessing and curse ensue upon what we are, not 
upon what we were. Reparation is within the spirit itself. The atonement is edu- 
cational, not govemmentaL" We reply that the atonement is both governmental 
and educational, and that reparation must first be made to the holiness of God before 
conscience, the mirror of God's holiness, can reflect that reparation and be at peace. 

The law of God is therefore characterized by : 

(a) All-comprehensiyeness. — It is over us at all times ; it respects our 
past, our present, our future. It forbids every conceivable sin ; it requires 
every conceivable virtue ; omissions as well as commissions are condemned 
by it 

Fi 119 : 96 — " I bATB Men u end of all parfBotion . . . . thj (wmiaaniimtnt ii exoeeding brotd" ; Ron. 3 :23— 
MftUhaniiiUMd.andfdlikortoftbe glory of God"; JuMt4:i7— ' Tb kirn thmforo that knovttkto do good, aad 



THE LAW OF GOD IN PARTICULAB, 543 

doflk it B0t» to hia it it sin." Gravitation holds tho mote as well as the world. God's law 
detects and denounces the least sin, so that without atonement it cannot be pardoned. 
The law of gravitation may be suspended or abrogated, for it has no necessary gn>^und 
in God's bein^r ; but God's moral law cannot be suspended or abrograted, for that would 
contradict God's holiness. '' About right " is not '* all right." ** The giant hexa«roiial 
pillars of basalt in the Scottish StafTa are identical in form with the microscopic crys- 
tals of the same mineral." So God is our pattern, and goodness is our likeness to him. 

(6) Spiritoality. — It demands not only right acts and words, but also 
right dispositions and states. Perfect obedience requires not only the 
intense and unremitting reign of love toward God and man, but conformity 
of the whole inward and outward nature of man to the holiness of God. 

Hat 5 : 22, 28 — the an^rry word is murder ; the sinful look is adultery. Hark 12 : 30, 81 — ** thou 
■halt bT6 th« Lord th J God with aU thj ho&rt, and with all thj sool, and with aU thj mind, and with all thj ftnogtk 
.... Thoa shalt Ioto thj neighbor aa thjaelf " ; 2 Cor. 10 : 5 — "bringing evorj thought into eaptiritj to the obedienoa 
ofChriit"; Iph. 5:1 — "Be je therefore imitatort of God, aabeloTedohildren"; 1 Pet 1:16 — "Te ehaUbeholj; fir 
I am holj." As the brightest electric light, seen through a smoked glass afr&inst the sun, 
appears like a black spot, so the brightest unregencrate character is dark, when com- 
pared with the holiness of God. Matheson, Moments on the Mount, 235, remarks on 
6aLd:4 — " let eaih man prore his own work, and then shall he have his gloTing in regard of himMlf alone, and not 
of his neighbor" — ** I have a small candle and I compare it with my brother's taper and 
come away rejoicing. Why not compare it with the sun ? Then I shall lose my pride 
and uncharitableness.** The distance to the sun from the top of an ant-hill and from 
the top of Mount Everest is nearly the same. Tho African princess praised for her 
beauty had no way to verify the compliments paid her but by looking in the glassy 
surface of the pool. But the trader came and sold her a mirror. Then she was so 
shocked at her own ugliness that she broke the mirror in pieces. So we look into the 
mirror of God's law, compare ourselves with the Christ who is reflected there, and hate 
the mirror which reveals us to ourselves ( James 1 : 23, 24 ). 

(c) Solidarity. — It exhibits in all its parts the nature of the one 
Lawgiver, and it' expresses, in its least command, the one requirement of 
harmony with him. 

Vat. 5 : 48 —" Te therefore shall be perfect^ as joor hesTonlj Father is perfeet " ; Hark 12:29, 30 — "The Lord oar 
God, the Lord is one : and thou shalt love the Lord thj God " ; James 2 : 10 — "For whoaoerer shall keep the iritole law, 
and jet stmnble in one pointy he is become gnil^ of all " ; 4 : 12 — " One onlj is the lawgiver and jodge." Even 
little rattlesnakes are snakes. One link broken in the chain, and tbe bucket falls into 
the well. The least sin separates us from God. The least sin renders us iruilty of the 
whole law, because it shows us to lack the love which is required in all the command- 
ments. Those who send us to tho Sermon on the Mount for salvation send us to a 
tribunal that damns us. The Sermon on the Mount is but a republicution of the law 
given on Sinai, but now in more spiritual and penetrating form. Thunders and light- 
nings proceed from the N. T., as from the O. T., mount. The Sermon on tbe Mount is 
only the Introductory lecture of Jesus' theological course, as John 14-17 Is the olosinfir 
lecture. In it is announced the law, which prepares the way for the gospel. Those 
who would degrade doctrine by exalting precept will find that they have left men 
without the motive or the power to keep the precept, ^schylus, Agamenmon : **For 
there's no bulwark in man's wealth to him Who, through a surfeit, kicks ~ into the 
dim And disappearing- ~ Right's great altar." 

Only to the first man, then, was the law proposed as a method of salva- 
tion. With the first sin, all hope of obtaining the divine favor by perfect 
obedience is lost. To sinners the law remains as a means of discovering 
and developing sin in its true nature, and of compelling a recourse to the 
mercy provided in Jesns Christ. 

2 Ghnm. 34 : 19~ "And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the lav, that he rent his olothes**; Job 
42 : 5, 6 — "I had heard of thee bj the hearing of the ear ; But now mine eye seeth thee; Wherefore I abhor mjsel^ And 
repent in dnst and ashes." The revelation of God in Is. 6: 3,5— "Iolj,holj, holj. is Jehovah of hosts" — 
causes the prophet to cry like the leper : " Woe is me I for I am undone ; becsnse I am a man of andean 
Upf." Rom. 3 : 20— "bj the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight ; for thnogh the law oometh tht 



544 ANTHROPOLOGY, OB THE DOCTRINE OP MAK. 

kBowIadg* of dtt *^ 5:20-- *'tk<]AVfliaa in baddei^ that the tntpui night aboo^ 7:7,8 — ^'IhadnotkiowB 
■in, exoept throogh thelaw : fir I had not knovn eoToting, exeopt the law had laid, Thoa ihatt not oo?et : bat sin, lading 
•eeadoB, vnwght in me thnm^ the eoamandment all Bumar of eoTOtin; : fir apart firm the law lin it dead " ; GaL 
8:24— "SothatthelawiabeeoBeoortator/'or attcndant-alave, "to bring u nnto Chrii^ that we might be 
JutiHed bj fiuth " — tho law trains our wayward boyhood and leads it to Christ the Master, 
as in old times the slave accompanied children to school. Stevens, Pauline Theology, 
177, 178 — '* The law increases sin by increasing the knowledge of sin and by increasing 
the activity of sin. The law does not add to the inherent energy of the sinful principle 
which pervades human nature, but it does cause this principle to reveal itself more 
energetically in sinful act.** The law inspires fear, but it leads to love. The Rabbins 
said that, if Israel repented but for one day, tho Messiah would appear. 

No man ever yet drew a straight line or a perfect curve ; yet he would be a poor archi- 
tect who contented himself with anything less. Since men never come up to their 
ideals, he who aims to live only an average moral life will inevitably fall be loir the 
average. The law, then, leads to Christ. He who is the ideal is also the way to attain 
tho ideaL He who is himself the Word and the Law embodied, is also the Spirit of life 
that makes obedience possible to U8(Johnl4:6 — "I amthewaj, andthetnith,andthelife"; Ren. 
8:2— "ror the Uw of theSpiritof lift in Christ Jenumadonie free fromthelawof sin and of death*'). Mrs. Brown- 
ing, Aurora Leigh : ** The Christ himself had been no Lawgiver, Unless he had given 
the Life too with the Law.*' Christ for us upon the Cross, and Christ in us by his 
Spirit, is the only deliverance from the curse of the law ; GaL 3 : 13 — "Christ redeemed as frun 
the enrae of the law, baring beoome a eorae fir ns.'* We must see the claims of the law satis&ed and 
the law itself written on our hearts. We are "reooooiled to God through the death of his Son," but 
we are also "sared by his life " ( Rom. 5 : 10 ). 

Robert Browning, in The Ring and the Book, represents Caponsacchi as comparing 
himself at his best with the new ideal of ** perfect as Father in heaven is perfect ** sug- 
gested by Pompilia*s purity, and as breaking out into the cry : ** O great, just, good God I 
Miserable mel *' In the Interpreter's House of Pilgrim's Progress, Law only chirred 
up the dust in the foul room, — the Gospel had to sprinkle water on the floor before 
it could be cleansed. E. G. Robinson : ** It is necessary to smoke a man out, before you 
can bring a higher motive to bear upon him.*' Barnabas said that Christ was the 
answer to the riddle of the law. Bom. 10 : 4—** Christ is the end of the law onto righteousness to eveiy one 
that belie-'eth.'* The railroad track opposite Detroit on the St. Clair River runs to the edge 
of the dock and seems intended to plunge the train into the abyss. But when the ferry 
boat comes up, rails are seen upon its deck, and the boat is the end of the track, to carry 
passengers over to Detroit. So the law, which by itself would bring only destruction, 
finds its end in Christ who ensures our passage to the celestial city. 

Law, then, with its picture of spotlcas innocence, simply reminds man of the heights 
from which he has fallen. *' It is a mirror which reveals derangement, but does not 
create or remove it.** With its demand of absolute perfection, up to the measure of 
man*s original endowments and possibilities, it drives us, in despair of ourselves, to 
Christ as our only righteousness and our only Savior ( Rom. 8 : 3, 4— "For what the law eonld not 
do, in that it wu weak thrragh tho flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinftil flesh and for sin, oondaiined 
sin in the flesh : that the ordinaooeof the law might be folfilled in ns, who walk not after the flesh, bat after the Spirit" ; 
Phil 3 : 8, 9 — " that I may gain Christ, and be fimnd in him, not baring a righteonsness of mine own, eren that i^eh 
is of the law, bat that which is throogh fiuth in Christ, the rig^teonsness which is from God bj fkith " ). Thus law 
must prepare the way for gi ace, and John the Baptist must precede Christ. 

When Sarah Bernhardt was solicited to add an eleventh commandment, she declined 
upon the ground there were already ten too many. It was an expression of pagan con- 
tempt of law. In heathendom, sin and insensibility to sin increased together. In J uda- 
ism and Christianity, on the contrary, there has been a growing sense of sin's guilt 
and condemnableness. McLaren, in 8. S. Times, Sept. 28, 1883:600— *' Among the Jews 
there was a far prof ounder sense of sin than in any other ancient nation. The law 
written on men*s hearts evoked a lower consciousness of sin, and there are prayers on 
tho Assyrian and Babylonian tablets which may almost stand beside the 61st Psalm. 
But, on the whole, the deep sense of sin was the product of the revealed law.*' See 
Fairbaim, Revelation of Law and Scripture ; Baird, Elohim Revealed, 187-242; Hovey, 
God with Us, 187-210 ; Julius MUller, Doctrine of Sin, 1 : 4&-60 ; Murphy, Sdentiflo Bases 
of Faith, &^71 ; Martineau, Types, 2 : 120-125. 

2. Positive Enactment^ or the expression of the vill of Gk>d in pub- 
lished ordinances. This is also two-fold : 



THE LAW OP GOD IN PARTICULAR. 645 

« 

A. General moral precepts. — These are written summaries of the ele- 
mental law ( Mat. 5 : 48 ; 22 : 37-40 ), or authorized applications of it to 
special human conditions (Ex. 20 : 1-17 ; Mat. chap. 5-8). 

Mai 5 : 48—" Tetherefbn shaU be porftot, u jovr hMTfl&lj Fathor ii perfaet " ; 22 : 37-40— "Iboa shalt Iot« theLori 
thj God . . . . Tk<m sluJt lore thj neighbor as thjaelt On these tvo oommandments th« whole law hangeth and ths 
prophets" ; Ix. 20 : 1-17 — the Ten Ck)mmandmentfl ; Mat, ohap. 5-8 — the Sermon on the Mount. 
Cf. Auffustlne, on Fs. 57 : t 

Solly, On the Will, 162, gives two illustrations of the fact that positive precepts are 
merely applications of elemental law or the law of nature : ** ^ Thou alialt not steal,* is a 
moral law which may be stated thus : tlum shcUt imt take that for thy onm property^ vchich 
<8 the property of another. The contradictory of this proposition would be : tlwu mayest 
take that for thy own projyerty which is the property of another. But this is a contradic- 
tion in terms ; for it is the very conception of property, that the owner stands in a 
peculiar relation to its subject matter ; and what is every man's property is no man's 
property, as it is proper to no man. Hence the contradictory of the commandment 
contains a simple contradiction directly it is made a rule universal ; and the command- 
ment itself is established as one of the principles for the harmony of individual wills. 

^* * Thou shall not tell a lie^* as a rule of morality, may bo expressed grenerally : thou 
shaU not hy thy outvxird act make another to believe thy thought to be other than U is. 
The contradictory made universal is : every man may by his outward act make another to 
beliei^ his thought to be other than it is. Now this maxim also contains a contradiction, 
and is self-destructive. It conveys a permission to do that which is rendered impossi- 
ble by the permission itself. Absolute and universal indifference to truth, or the entire 
mutual independence of the thought and symbol, makes the symbol cease to bo a sym- 
bol, and the conveyance of thought by its means, an impossibility.'* 

Kant, Metaphysio of Ethics, 48, 90— ** Fundamental law of reason : So act, that thy 
maxims of will might become laws in a system of universal moral legislation.** This is 
Kant's categorical imperative. Ho expresses it in yet another form : "Act from maxims 
fit to be regarded as universal laws of nature.*' For expositions of the Decalogue which 
bring out its spiritual meaning, see Kurtz, Religionslehre, 9-72; Dick, Theology, 2:613- 
554 ; Dwight, Theology, 8 : 163^660 ; Hodge, Syst. Theol.. 3 : 239-465. 

B. Ceremonial or special injunctions. — Tliese are illustrations of the 
elemental law, or approximate revelations of it, suited to lower degrees of 
capacity and to earlier stages of spiritual training ( Ez. 20 : 25 ; Mat. 19:8; 
Mark 10 : 5 ). Though temporary, only God can say when they cease to 
be binding upon us in their outward form. 

All positive enactments, therefore, whether they be moral or ceremonial, 
are republications of elemental law. Their forms may change, but the sub- 
stance is eternal. Certain modes of expression, like the Mosaic system, 
may be abolished, but the essential demands are unchanging ( Mat 5 : 17, 
18 ; cf, Eph. 2 : 15 ). From the imperfection of human language, no posi- 
tive enactments are able to express in themselves the whole content and 
meaning of the elemental law. ** It is not the purpose of revelation to 
disclose the whole of our duties." Scripture is not a complete code of rules 
for practical action, but an enunciation of principles, i^-ith occasional pre- 
cepts by way of illustration. Hence we must supplement the positive 
enactment by the law of being — the moral ideal found in the nature of God. 

Is. 20 : 25 — " Moreorer also I gave them gtatateslhat were not good, and ordinances wherein thej should not Uto " ; 
Mat 19 : 8 — " Moses for your hardness of heart suffered jou to put away jonr wives " ; Mark 10 : 5 — "For joor hard- 
ness of heart he wrote joa this commandment " ; Mat. 5 : 17, 18 — " Think not that I came to destroj the law or the proph- 
ets : I came not to destroj, but to ftilflL For Terilj I s&j unto joo, Till hearen and earth pass awaj, one jot or on) 
tittle shall in no wise pass awaj from the law, till all things be accomplished " ; cf. Iph. 2 : 15 — "having abolished in 
his flesh the enmitj, even the law of oommandments contained in ordinances " ; leb. 8:7 — "if that first covenant had 
been faultless, then woold no pUoe have been sooght for a second." Fisher, Nature and Method of Rev ela- 
lation, 90— ** After the coming of the new covenant, the keeping up of the old was as 
85 



SM ▲sTEmvoi£p&T, 02 73Z DijiCT^isn or 




% ^fsrita, m -nraSKe gasiums^ xl zatt sHit ate :f 

Viiru u:^ «;;.r. j^rir^j^ v^ Ol 7. ^ifc'^an jfcv Bkx 2 Z' h^ 
MriWOl Ivx T S : Vb ^>. 7. t.T'x-% jrv lei H S k;^ . 

4)€ *jut^ m^mtMt Mw, tc3 tT- rt-r**. ny s. trmiri'* 'Jut 

tlutT >£i4tfdL He vr^iJid 7^txt*tx zagt •>. T. crjoecvcaaBB <€ ^:«£ — 

te tte£r Lsuna: 5f.«a. t/nrt ^ -.3«£r«awL<fc: ifcrs. X:c ^7 

\mi^af.**x •fzyp'MifJt. ia ?»& O. T. Ui p«rf ««sxc ace tr t 

iyjm^fi;rt: ■ kx a aeries of mtzsit i=> 

ifci>t« hj imtiruMri^ lk0t setter fniCf^* <-f the- f|icrix. t>Ff^ 

l^>r Um>^ <»SiMai£>w of CMEMCKCMe. Tliis If doc trot eiiber of O. T. c< u( X. T. av. In 
Jf JM F'yvkr^i Dfymel Tbe FantnrdiMa. Mn. H<«t«rt vi&ha -ifau tbe B£Ue lad been 
vf^fUo Ob tib«r priafipi0k of tbcs fircadfiil fittje Uxjk cmlkd ' DceX' vfcac^ girrs m list 
f/t tk0i 9f/f 0jJ i m» j'Ai tbf^LA MT'^\ ibe voajd bn^e cn>lerstocM! Si so iciack bemer than 
tbe yf90^A tr^Uxm." fmr SmrifM^* vordi atoat giria^ to him thai aakcch. and toro- 
Inir the c-tesek t// tbe tauter ' Ic S : M^ moK be inserpreted by the principle of lore 
thfet Uea at the f^'/oodatioo of the lav. Girisf to ef-err trunp aod i>e)iSi39 to e twj 
■■uiiui4erUDrApk«crncoiiriMiirhbor*firitevia3i f«l nai fl£f^^ Only 

br 'rr/nf/jpondinjr the dhrlne lav vith ffcripture prohibitica coaid coe write as in X. 
Amer, H^rr^ Feb. lW»:27^~'*&in is the trai Mgiu gioa of a dirine lav; but there is do 
dirjne lav airaioM fuicide : therefore floici'le i§ not <m.** 

Tbe vrttteo lav van imperfect becaoae God couM. at the time, give no hii^lKr to an 
nxienliirtitened pe^^le. ** But to wlj that the irr/jn^ and fifAyn were imperfectljr morml, 
la ormtra/lieteid hj tbe whole cr^urK of the hictorj. We muet a$k what is the moral 
9tmn/Uu*l in wfaicfa tfaJa oourae of edacatkHi iwiog." And this we find in the life and 
pT'^.tfrptJi iff Christ. E«-en the law of repentance and faith do«e not take the place of 
the old law fft tjeinir. but applies the latter to the special con<iitions of sin. Under the 
l^srittcml law. tbe prohibition of the touching- of the dry bone ' Sen. !9 : K t, eqiiallj' with 
the puriflcfttk^ns and sacrilloea, the separations and penalties of the Mosaic code, 
ejrprrsMKd G'^'s br^liocias and bis repelling' from him all that savored of sin or death. 
Tbe laws with reirard to leprosy were symbolic, as well as sanitary. So church polity 
and this ordlnanr^es are not arbitrary requirements, but they publish to dull sense- 
eavlrtHMsA consciences, Ijetter than abstract propositions could have done, the funda- 
mental truths of tbe Christian scheme. Hence they are not to be abrogated *tiahtMBt*' 
(iCw,li:»). 

Thii Puritans, however^ in reCnarting tbe Mosaic code, made the mistake of confound- 
inir tbe tiUimaX law of God with a partial, temporary, and obsolete expression of it. 
1^» wti are n^/t t/i rf«t in external precepts respecting woman's hair and dresB and speech, 
t/ut U) And tlie underlying principle of modesty and subordination which alone is of 
uni rental and eternal validity. Iiol>ert Browning, The Ring and tbe Book, 1 : 255 — ** God 
l/reatlu.'S. n^/t speaks, his verdicts, felt not beard — Passed on successively to each court, 
I <ml\ Man's otftwcUmoe^ custrim, manners, all that make More and more effort to pro- 
mu Igatf}, mark Gcjd's verdict in determinable words. Till last come human Jurists— 
Sfilidl f y Fluid rcsstilts,— what's flxablc lies forged. Statute,— the residue escapes in fume, 
Ytit luuigs aloft a cloud, as palpable To the finer sense as word tbe legist welds. Justin- 
ian's PandfKrts only make precise What simply sparkled in men's eyes before. Twitched 
in tiw;lr brow or quivered on their lip. Waited the speech they called, but would not 
mmui.'* flee Mf>zley, Killing Id(A8 in Early Ages, 104 ; Tulloch, Doctrine of Sin, 14M44 ; 
FlrirH;y, flyst TheoU 1-40, 13&-819; Mansel, Metaphysics, 378, 379; H. B. Smith, System 
of ThiM>logy, 101-195. 

PauI'm Injunction to women to keep silence in the churches (1 Oor. 14 : 35 ; 1 Vm. 2 : 11, 12) is 
to )M9 inU;rprf;tf)d t)y the larger law of gospel equality and privilege ( CoL 3 : 11 ). Modrsty 
and sulxmli nation once rr*<iuir(»d a seclusion of the female sex which is no longer oblig- 
atory. Clirlstlanity has emancipated woman and has restored her to the dignity which 
lN)long«t<l Ut hor at tho tieginnlng. *' In the old dispensation Miriam and Deborah and 
llulflali were recognized as leaders of God's people, and Ajuia was a notable prophetess 




BELATIOK OF THE LAW TO THE OBACB OP 60D. 547 

in the temple courts at the time of the oomlng' of Christy Elizabeth and Mary spoke 
songs of praise for all grenerations. A prophecy of Jo«l 2: 28 was that the daugrhtcrs of 
the Lord*6 people should prophesy, under the guidance of the Spirit, in the newdispen- 
ntion. Philip the evangelist had 'torn Tirgin dingkUn^ vho pnpkiiied* (iotiZl : 9), and Paul 
cautioned Christian women to have their heads covered when they prayed or prophe- 
sied in public (10or.ll:5Xbut had no words against the work of such women. He 
brought Prisdlla with him to Ephesus, where she aided in training Apollos into better 
preaching' power (A0ts 18:26). He weicomed and was grateful for the work of those 
women who labored with him in the gospel at Philippi ( FliiL 4:3). And it Is certainly 
an inference from the spirit and teachings of Paul that wo should rejoice in theeflScient 
service and sound words of Christian women to-day in the Sunday School and in the 
missionary field.*' The command ** ind he that hMureth lit him tkj, Oobm " ( Rst. 22 : 17) is addressed 
to women also. See Ellen BateUe Dletrick, Women in the Early Christian Ministry ; 
per contra, see O. F. Wilkin, Prophesying of Women, 183-108. 

TTT. BsiiATION OF THB liAW TO THB GbACB OF Gk>D. 

In human govemment^ while law is an expression of the will of the 

governing power, and so of the nature lying behind the will, it is by no 

means an exhaustive expression of that will and nature, since it consists 

only of general ordinances, and leaves room for particular acts of command 

through the executive, as well as for " the institution of equity, the faculty 

of discretionary punishment, and the prerogative of pardon. " 

Amos, Science of Law, 29-46, shows how " the institution of equity, the faculty of 
discretionary punishment, and the prerogative of pardon ** all involve expressions of 
will above and beyond what is contained in mere statute. Century Dictionary, on 
Equity : " English law had once to do only with property in goods, houses and lands. 
A man who had none of these might have an interest in a salary, a patent, a contract* 
a copyright, a security, but a creditor could not at common law levy upon these. 
When the creditor applied to the crown for redress, a chancellor or keeper of the 
king's conscience was appointed, who determined what and how the debtor should 
pay. Often the debtor was required to put his intangible property into the hands of a 
receiver and could regain possession of it only when the claim against it was satisfied. 
These chancellors* courts wore called courts of equity, and redressed wrongs which the 
common law did not provide for. In later times law and equity are administered for 
the most part by the same courts. The same court sits at one time as a court of law, 
and at another time as a court of equity.'* ** Summa lex, summa injuria,'* is sometimes 
true. 

Applying now to the divine law this illustration drawn from human law, 
we remark : 

( a ) The law of God is a general expression of God's will, applicable to 

all moral beings. It therefore does not exclude the possibility of special 

injunctions to individuals, and special acts of wisdom and power in creation 

and providence. The very specialty of these latter expressions of will 

prevents us from classing them under the category of law. 

Lord Bacon, Confession of Faith : '* The soul of man was not produced by heaven or 
earth, but was breathed immediately from God ; so the ways and dealings of Gkxl with 
spirits are not included in nature, that is, in the laws of heaven and earth, but are 
reserved to the law of his secret will and grace.** 

(6) The law of God, accordingly, is a partial, not an exhaustive, 
expression of God's nature. It coustitntes, indeed, a manifestation of that 
attribute of holiness which is fundamental in God, and which man must 
possess in order to be in harmony with God. But it does not fully express 
God's nature in its aspects of personality, sovereignty, helpfulness, mercy. 

The chief error of all pantheistic theology is the assumption that law is an exhaustive 
expression of God : Strauss, Qlaubenslehre, 1 : ai~** If nature, as the self-realization of 



Mi AirszjfW^ovrTy ^A 7ZZ 3om=xz 





4cuutrfL iM; ^ai^ te ^uKttMt ^vjaifuas <2iEaK~ nu?' if 

«</ Zttv Ai^ik ^A ^fx^l-^k %pias. 'IkmL, 3 zZ — "'-wbac loat jbv easjd mt do 
fp'A^'^ip 

^4 w^a^'^fA, 'ji^cTf 'M ty/u Bias. ff»£ 4iss«ft. skx ite ynrnirfainmc ics 3^ fti^i iiiwi of 

Mi(»MMte^^/&« '4V(r tiwt ff^i«^ << krv« tie <«aMr ^ CH.1L: *'L«v 

)• ff^ UMiMfjtlf^^ «A ti^ cubrf oC 0'>A » to ^^tfS max, ^Kigxx 10 bc^ Bbi Goi ii bc« 
m^(f*^T iMw, h'/t ifrnit, Tter% * «nr^% ia hji hftfl lA— v.*zjt be ■ ja^^a d =y M ifcg *f 
«r'/r4«/ VA «iM; iKv, Uit '/euT Cfcritc. &• tbe p«rf<«t iBM« of God * « Jis 1 :Sr~*Mr At 

l>/f iMnr tb^;k <A'J4 ^'/w it, ci^A Uti^aoiM iiie BOft, iNit btt^ ToMXtl 

IM<^ M v^ k^ grw^, to t// M J Utti Wit ai« iBT«d twch Tithoat Bcrit on oar ova 
•'^ iri«f«/yivt g»0^3Mmtitj '/b tb^ pmit of G<>1. Grace is made known in 
'/If 'TV. *3ffttui»au^ ; ^>ui id alj t JMae It to gfitptLt or giad-ti<tingifc 

r 'i ; Oni/:« in Uf \9H nritMT*ifAf however, nc4 as ahtogating lav, baft as 
ft',im\f\htUmn taA «;fjf</rciii^ it ( B/jm. 3 :31 — " we establish the law **). Bt 
r«r//«//vjii|^ if\/tiUtf'\iTH U9 lauihrn in the mind of God, and bj enabling man to 
oli^y, t(nyiii f^ztir*^ \Xih jferftsct fulfilment of law (Bcnn. 8 : 4 — ''thai the 
itft\Uuitu*A9 (d ihh kw rriu^ht be fulfilled in ns**). Even giaoe has its law 
( lUtm. H:2 — *'i]u9 law of the Spirit of life** ) ; another higher law of 
lfjmfU9f tlii) o|M;mtk/n of in<lividnalizing mercy, overbears the ** law of sin 
and of tWth/* • - thiif IsKt^ an in the case of the miracle, not being sns- 
fHuuhul^ arijjti]]i$d, or violiiirkl, Imt l>eing merged in, while it is transcended 
\fy, iUa <!Xi;rtion of lierwinal divine wilL 

Wrttkitr, Kmil Vohiy, 1 : ]». 1^, 194 - '' Man, having utteriy disabled his nature unto 
iU*tm: [ riMLuniJ J tn^-uun, (mth hu<l otiicr revealed by GcKl,and hatb reoeived f rom heaven 
M tnw Ui U^Ht'M liltfi how that which to desired naturally, must now be supematuraliy 
attftliwd, KhiiUly, w«? miti that, \Hrc9.\\m those latter exclude not the former as uuneoes- 
wtry, llMtrfffore the law of Knuyb t4«ch(« and includes natural duties also, such as are 
hard Ut umwrXiiUi Uy the hiw of nuturo." The truth to midway between the Pelagian 
vl«iw, I hut Uwro. In no ohtlncle to the forirlvencss of sins, and the modem rationalistic 
vl«iw, t tiitt NhH!4i hiw fully expnMWss OfHl, there can be no forgiveness of sins at all. 
iirt'itt CnMwl of (lirlMteridom, 2 1 217 228 ~ *'God to the only being who cannot forgive 
uliiM. . . . I'linlNhiiiffrit to not the axwAiUon of a sentence, but the occurrence of an 
nirt'i't.'* i(olH'r(4Miri, lAu*.t, on (Icrufsis, 100— *' Deettoare irrevocable,— their consequences 
am knit up with thi*ni Imivocably." So Bu<k>n Powell, Law and Gospel, in Noyes* 
ThKiiiiiirlnil KiMuiyH, 27. All thto to true if Go<l be regarded as merely the source of law. 
Hut I hi«ni In Huoh u thing lui gnioe, and grace is more than law. There to no forgiveness 
In iiiilun*, but khuhi in uliove and Ix^yond nature. 

llrniiriMfl, llrriHllty, ZKU tjuotcH from Huxley the terrible utterance : ** Nature always 

(•h(t(<ltiiiiiti«H, without hiiNt4) and without remorse, never overlooking a mtotake, or 

tilth 1 1 uf tho Hllght4<itt iillowani« for Ignorance." Bradford then remarks: *'This to 

OtlvlnlHiii Willi (lo«l loft t»iit. ('hrlHtlanity docs not deny or minimize the law of retii- 

butluii, bitt it dtouluMOS a Purtun who to able to deliver In spite of it. There to graoe^ 



DEFINITION OP 8IK. 549 

but grace brings salvation to those who accept the terms of salvation— terms strlctly 
in accord with the laws revealed by science.'* God revealed himself* we add, not only 
in law but in life ; see Deai i : 8, 7— "Ta hvn dvdt kog anoogk in tliif moantiin "— the mountain of 
the law; *'tiini7eaand taluToarJoamej" — i. e., see how GkKl's law is to be applied to life. 

(e) Thus the revelation of grace, whUe it takes np and includes in itself 
the revelation of law, adds Bomething different in kind, namely, the mani- 
festation of the personal love of the Lawgiver. Withoat grace, law has 
only a demanding aspect. Only in connection with grace does it become 
" the perfect law, the law of liberty" (James 1 :25). In fine, grace is 
that larger and completer manifestation of the divine nature, of which law 
constitutes the necessary but preparatory stage. 

Law reveals Ood*s love and mercy, but only in their mandatory aspect ; it requires 
in men conformity to the love and mercy of God ; and as lovo and mercy in God are 
conditioned by holiness, so law requires that love and mercy should be conditioned by 
holiness in men. Law is therefore chiefly a revelation of holiness : it is in grace that 
we find the chief revelation of love ; though even love does not save by ignoring holi- 
ness, but rather by vicariously satisfying its demands. Robert Browning, Saul : ^ I 
spoke as I saw. I report as man may of God's work ~ All 's Love, yet all 's Law.'* 

Domer, Person of Christ, 1 : 64, 78— ** The law was a word ( \6y<K ), but it was not a 
koyos tAcuk, a plastic word, like the words of God that brought forth the world, for it 
was only imperative, and there was no reality nor willing corresponding to the com> 
maud idem SollenfeMU das Scyn^ d<i8 Wollen), The Christian A6y(k is Adyof aAi)i9cia« — 
vofiot rdktiot T^« iAevdeptac — an Operative and effective word, as that of creation." 
Chaucer, The Persones Tale : ** For sothly the lawe of God is the love of God." S. B. 
Times, Sept. 14, 1901 : 585— ** Until a man ceuscs to be an outsider to the kingdom and 
knows the liberty of the sons of God, he is apt to think of God as the great Exacter, the 
groat Forbidder, who reaps where he has not sown and gathers where he has notstrewn." 
Burton, in Bap. Rev., July, 1879:381-273, art.: Law and Divine Intervention; Farrar, 
Science and Theology, 184 ; Salmon, Beign of Law ; Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 1 : SL 



SECTION II. — NATURE OF SIN. 

I. Definition op Sin. 

Sin is lack of conformity to the moral law of God, either in act, disposi- 
tion, or state. 

In explanation, we remark that (a) This definition regards sin as pred- 
icable only of rational and voluntary agents. ( 6 ) It assumes, however, 
that man has a rational nature below consciousness, and a voluntary nature 
apart from actual volition. ( c ) It holds that the divine law requires moral 
likeness to God in the affections and tendencies of the nature, as well as in 
its outward activities, (d) It therefore considers lack of conformity to the 
divine holiness in disposition or state as a violation of law, equally with the 
outward act of transgression. 

In our discussion of the Will (pages 604-513), we noticed that there are permanent 
states of the will, as well as of the intellect and of the sensibilities. It is evident, more- 
over, that these permanent states, unlike man's deliberate acts, are always very imper- 
fectly conscious, and in many cases are not conscious at all. Yet it is in these very 
states that man is most unlike Gorl, and so, as law only reflects Qod (see pages 537-644), 
most lacking in conformity to God's law. 

One main difference between Old School and New School views of sin is that the latter 
constantly tends to limit sin to mere act, while the former Wnds sin in the states of the 
soul. We propose what we think to be a valid and proper compromise between the two. 



550 ANTUBOPOLOOYy OB THE DOCTRIKB OF ICAH. 

We make sin ooCztenstTe, not with act, but with actiritj. TbeOld Sohooland the New 
8ctiool are not so tar apart, when we remember that the New School ** choice " is eleeUw 
preference exercised so soon m tlie child is bom ( Park) and reasKrUnff itself in all 
the subordinate choices of life; while the Old 8dK)ol ** state** is not a dead, paflBive» 
mechanical thine, but is a etaU of active mocemcntf or of tendency to move, toward 
eviL As 6od*s holiness is not paasiTe purity but purity willing ( pages 9SB-Si5 ), so the 
opposite to this, sin, is not passive impurity but is impurity willing. 

The soul may not always be conscious, but it may always be active. At his cieatioa 
man "btotaa a UTiag tool" (G«l 2:7)^ and it may be doubted whether the human spirit ever 
ceases its activity, /my more than the divine Spirit in whose image it is made. There is 
some reason to believe that even in the deepest sleep the body rests rather than the 
mind. And when we consider how large a portion of our activity is automatic and 
continuous, we see the impossibility of limiting the term *8in ' to the sphere of momen- 
ary act, whether conscious or unconscious. 

B. G. Robinson : ** Sin is not mere act— something foreign to the being. It is a quality 
of being. There is no such thing as a sin apart from a sinner, or an act apart from an 
actor. God punishes sinners, not sins. Sin is a mode of being ; as an entity by itself it 
never existed. God punishes sin as a state, not as an acL Man is not responsible for 
the consequences of his crimes, nor for the acts themselves, except as they are symp- 
tomatic of his personal states.*' Domcr, Hist. Doct. Person Chil8t» 5:Ke— ^Tlie 
knowledge of sin has justly been termed the ^ and f of philosophy.** 

Our treatment of Holiness, as belonging to the natoie of God ( pages 26S- 
275) ; of Will, as not only the faculty of volitions, batalso a permanent state 
of the soul (i>ages 504-513) ; and of Law as requiring the conformity of 
man's nature to Qod's holiness ( pages 537-544 ) ; has prepared ns for the 
definition of sin as a state. The chief psychological defect of New School 
theology, next to its making holiness to be a mere form of love, is its ignor- 
ing of the unconscious and subconscious elements in human character. To 
help our understanding of sin as an underlying and permanent state of the 
soul, we subjoin references to recent writers of note upon psychology and 
its relations to theology. 

We may preface our quotations by remarking that mind is always greater than its 
oonscious operations. The man is more than his acts. Only the smallest part of the 
self is manifested in the thoughts, feelings, and volitions. In counting, to putmjrself to 
sleep, I find, when my attention has been diverted by other thoughts, that the count- 
ing has gone on all the same. Ladd, Philosophy of Mind, 170, speaks of the ** dramatic 
sundering of the ego." There are dream-conversations. Dr. Johnson was once greatly 
vexed at being worsted by his opponent in an argument in a dream. M. Maury in a 
dream corrected the bad English of his real self by the good English of his other unreal 
self. Spurgeon preached a sermon in his sleep after vainly trying to excogitate one 
when awake, and his wife gave him the substance of it after he woke. Hegel said that 
** Life is divided into two realms — a night-life of genius, and a day-life of consciousness.*' 

DuPrel, Philosophy of Mysticism, propounds the thesis: **The ego is not wholly 
embraced in self-consciousness,*' and claims that there is much of psychical activity 
within us of which our common waking conception of ourselves takes no account. 
Thus when Mroam dramatizes *~ when wo engage in a dream-conversation in wliich 
our interlocutor's answer comes to us with a shock of surprise— if our own mind is 
assumed to have furnished that answer, it has done so by a process of unconscious 
activity. Dwinell, in Bib. Sac., July, 1890:360-389— ''The soul is only imperfectly in 
possession of its organs, and is able to report only a small part of its activities in 
consciousness." Thoughts come to us like foundlings laid at our door. We slip in a 
question to the librarian. Memory, and after leaving it there awhile the answer appears 
on the bulletin board. Delbopuf , Le Sommeil et les K^ves, 91 — '^ Ttie dreamer is a 
momentary and involuntary dupe of his own imagination, as the poet is the momentary 
and voluntary dupe, and the insane man is the permanent and involuntary dupe." If 
we are the organs not only of our own past thinking, but, as Herbert Spencer suggests, 
also the organs of the past thinking of the race, bis doctrine may give additional, though 
oonflrmation to a Scriptural view of sin. 



rv 



DBFIKITIOH OF 8IH. 651 

William James, Will to Believe, 816, quotes from F. W. H. Myers, In Jour. Psych. 
Research, who likens our ordinary consciousness to the visible part of the solar spec- 
trum ; the total consciousness is like that spectrum prolongred by the inclusion of the 
ultra-red and the ultra-violet rays — 1 to 12 and 96. " Each of us,*' he says, " is an abid- 
infr psychical entity far more extensive than he knows— an Individuality which can 
never express itself completely throu^rh any corporeal manifestation. The self mani- 
fests itself throufirh the orgranism ; but there is alwajrs some part of the self unmanif es- 
ted, and always, as it seems, some power of organic expression in abeyance or reserve.*' 
William James himself, in Scribner^s Monthly, March, 1800 : 361-373, sketches the hyp- 
notic Investigations of Janet and Binet. There is a secondary, subconscious self. 
Hysteria is the lack of synthetising power, and consequent disintegration of the field of 
consciousness into mutually exclusive parts. According to Janet, the secondary and the 
primary consciousnesses, added together, can never exceed the normally total con- 
sciousness of the individual. But Prof. James says: ^* There are trances which obey 
another type. I know a non-hysterical woman, who in her tranoes knows facts which 
altogether transcend her possible normal consciousness, fiicts about the lives of people 
whom she never saw or heard of before." 

Our affections are deeper and stronger than we know. We learn how deep and strong 
they are, when their current is resisted by affliction or dammed up by death. We know 
how powerful evil passions are, only when we try to subdue them. Our dreams show 
us our naked selves. On the morality of dreams, the London Spectator remarks : *^ Our 
consdenoe and power of self-control act as a sort of watchdog over our worse selves 
during the day, but when the watchdog is off duty, the primitive or natural man is at 
liberty to act as he pleases ; our * soul * has left us at the mercy of our own evil nature, 
and in our dreams we become what, except for the grace of God, we would always be." 

Both in conscience and in will there is a self-diremption. Kant's categorical imper- 
ative is only one self laying down the law to the other self. The whole Kantian system 
of ethics Is based on this doctrine of double consciousness. Ladd, in his Philosophy of 
Mind, 169 8gf., speaks of ** psychical automatism." Tet this automatism is possible only 
to self-conscious and oognltively remembering minds. It is always the ^*I ** that puts 
itself into " that other." We could not conceive of the other self except under the 
figure of the ^* I." All our mental operations are ours, and we are responsible for them, 
because the subconscious and even the unconscious self is the product of past self- 
conscious thoughts and volitions. The present settled state of our wills is the result of 
former decisions. The will is a storage battery, charged by past acts, full of latent 
power, ready to manifest Its energy so soon as the force which confines it is withdrawn. 
On unconscious mental action, see Carpenter, Mental Physiology, 139, 516-643, and criti- 
cism of Carpenter, in Ireland, Blot on the Brain, 226-238; Bramwell, Hypnotism, Its 
History, Practice and Theory, 358-398; Porter, Human Intellect, 333, 334; versus Sir 
Wm. Hamilton, who adopts the maxim : ** Non sentlmus, nisi sentlamus nos sentire " 
( Philosophy, ed. Wight, 171 ). Observe also that sin may Infect the body, as well as the 
soul, and may bring It into a state of non-conformity to God*s law (see H. B. SmUh, 
Syst.Theol.,287). 

In adducing onr Scriptnral and rational proof of the definition of sin as 
a state, we desire to obviate the objection that this view leaves the soul 
wholly given over to the power of eviL While we maintain that this is 
true of man apart from Grod, we also insist that side by side with the evil 
bent of the human will there is always an immanent divine power which 
greatly counteracts the force of evil, and if not resisted leads the individ- 
ual soul — even when resisted leads the race at large — toward truth and 
salvation. This immanent divine power is none other than Christy the 
eternal Word, the Light which lighteth every man ; see John 1 : 4, 9. 

Johai :4,9 — "InUmwisIif^andthelifevtsthali^htofmeo. .. . Than wis the true liglitiersntlw light vUoh 
lighteth every maa." See a further statement in A. H. Strong, Cleveland Sermon, Kay, 1904, 
with regard to the old and the new view as to sin : — ** Our fathers believed in total 
depravity, and we agree with them that man naturally is devoid of love to Ood and 
that every faculty is weakened, disordered, and corrupted by the selfish bent of his will. 
They hold to original sin. The selfish bent of man^s will can be traced back to the 
apostacy of our first parents ; and, on account of that departure of the race from Gk)d, 



ifSA ASTBftOPOLOeT, Oft THE DOCTKnn Or 






MAAC ^f Qw SMfiL i9Mt f r»>m ttetr Rtec^A to 

V4; v*, ^iurit a«i'« fittetkA Uj CtavlK astcstebed tfa« Fall axad cocHCScaed ab Eslesirc:^ 

Mrf av^^tShc <nwftf^A ''if OMA'f ttfe. Hammaitr w oBKin::;- : 

9iv(W|pi v^m; tgnaoM. tmd ta vb<«i th^y all ««■■(. Et«b isAri'f sa d^l boc 

^Xrw f /V4H. «t»»i v^ndmr ^ Um t^^ crAixBeract the «t1: aad co mm if che 

VIM «» lAt^vfltti. fli v*il Man«rxz«rt:^ pr^smnxy-ja toe muK'fl RdempciaB. In zl 

*A % ^rr'j^ prUi0itp¥k m oukd ver.rls^ aomrt tee Kiftih and rxfleai vtO. 

VAw f^^^ctmi^KL, trt^si up^int/t suui'i UAai d ey ra ttoj ; and an 

«^<tA m/<«i^ ^/wsrttA than orf^riiMi lin. 

" M^^h«v«!; t'rrcMi tfitm^Mm tfaat uxal 40SffnkTixj akxie ia ncc a "^^^ fc— ■« or 
«(rffc^r««M/>b '/f tlk«t Crutli ; aiad tbe pfanae faaa beam ootcrovn. It hm t«cc felt that the 
/ii4 n«rr <*># tin 4kl Of/t tMk^ acvxint «>{ tbe ggn c i wiB and nobse Kpuaxj^ioiL the ui— ■: f« 
Mb HT/yrta, tiM «rtrt&ipi aft^r O^^d, of ^'«hi anrcg»o<Tate men. For tfaja nmcn tbere 
IMH r^^m J#wa ^ra«ebinir ft^'^nit tiA, and kaa conriction ae to Ixa ^uilt and 
71m «9r^^ fmpnJafta ^4 mna frntniAn tb0: ChriMan paJe hare been often acdxted to hi 
A«f,r«/i^ irlMtk tb«!r nh/^iJd haT«; b«f«s cnrdiu^ to the indweilin^ Spirit of Chriff. I 
iw> '^/ixM tlMPt fjws f/t f/nr radkAl wvaikneaKa at thia proent time ii oar mfOee saperfl> 
dW y vrv <>>/ «fA. Wlthrmt » am mitmh of fin's guilt and condemnation, ve cannot feci 
^ftif M^^ f/t r^i^Mimptloa* JfAin the Baptiit man ffo before Cfaxte : the 
l>«K#! ti^^ va7 tf^ tb^ ir'#q>«L 

^ M7 f^iyrf U tbact tlv; n«^w apprebniiion of Chrlat's relation to the race will ( 
fm C// ^W^Uu^ m nurnr \p!tf0r^ tb« lr;«t eon^itUm of the sinner ; while at the 1 
w^, «*i//ir him that CbriaC in wf tb him and in him to aare. This presence in • 
f/t a u^fWtfT wA his «mn that works for rigiiteousneas is a Tery different doctrine from 
llhat * nirtnHj of man ' whkrb Is so otUm preached. The diviiiitT is ni>t the dirinity of 
DMA, f/t/tUAdMnitrr/f Christ. And the power that works for ri^teousneas is not 
Mm fff/wfir fft man, twt th^; r^iwer of Christ, It Is a power whose warning, inriting, 
$^fn9m/l\tn( Uftitrnncfs nwltTn only mf^re marked and dreadful the eril win which ham- 
p^« arid r«:aMf4lt. tffipruvlty is all the worse, when we reoognlK in it the oonstnnt 
aAMMT'/nlst f/t an ^rver^prment, ail-holj, and all-loTing Redeemer." 

L f'rfx/fs 

At^ it Im ftnUiWymliMiUA that the ontward act of transgreaBion is ptoperiy 
ihrtiz/ttAtihUftl niUf wo hf;ro attcmjit Ut show onlj that lack of oonformitr to 
tfiA Jaw of H'mI lu (Vmi/tjnititm or state ia also and eqoallj to be so denomi- 
fjal^y]. 

A. Vrt/rn Hcrijitriro. 

( a ) 'Jim wonlif ordinarily translated ' sin/ or nsed as synonyms for it» 
Hft* tm ap|ili/Mhl/} t4f dinix/ffitions and states as to acts (HKOn and dftap^ia b 
a iii'iHHttnf, failuns, c^miing short [ «c. of Qod's will ] ). 

H#4^9*«. {&:»-" •.MuavAvtttiJH;!/"; K M :2-''d«aMMfrmnTwi'*; S— "Btholilmabiwgkt 
lur^lh t*^iiHf : 1*4 i* iis 414 mjm^km toSMirtM"; lAm.7:17'"iia vhiekdvtDKkiBM"; compare 
^ii4«4t M : % m\mrt% Hhj JH^ nil ifWfinlfiK of th<j word appears : "illBgikait aia kur-ta4th. aadoil 
mm ' f M(pn ;* tit » MlfiiliMr rnanrusr, ^f^fp [ ijcx a<r^^<uI] - separation fronu rebellion 
NlfSlrjMi f «/!. H'/d ) ; «f'<t L«f. 14 : 14, 21 ; /^/. llfjiltzm.*h on K 32 : L ]1^ [ lzx 064x01 ] — bending, 
fitttvftmUrti \Mt, of what Is rlicht], liilquifjr; see Ur. 5:17; e/. Joks7:l& 8ce also the 
lliittt.w j^*!, J^y^'^i f"" njlii, <9rmfijiiJon ], and the Oroek awwmuria^ cvidv^io, cxdp«s K«<i«, 
mNff,i,iM, ttAf,^, Htf'wt tft iitimii dirNliciiMtiofifl of sln limlts it to mere act,— most of them 
Hit ft*. imiuinHf miuit*ni 'ilN|HiMllloft or Htiite. 'AttMpria implies that man in sin does not 
n.H/tt wiiMf III! m-4^k» llii-nlfi; sin Isastuto of delusion and deception (Julius Mtlller). 
hu Mi«i w,n\m rii^nllofiitfl, mitt fJlrrll<<HUino, (>. T. Synonyms; Crcmer, Lexicon N. T. 
hft^k i I'l t:mthi I tuy Tf lurMi, ft I no. 2H, pp, 4»l 47 ; Trench, N. T. Synonyms, part 3 : 61, 73. 

( // ; *VUh Hi'.w TtitiUttiwut d«;H^riptions of sin bring more distinctly to 
¥h^w Uiii hUiU-.H ami diM|ioiiiiionM tlian the outward acts of the sonl (1 John 
H (4 //ti/wftfia intii' // fH'n/tln, whoro avofiia i=b ^ not ** transgression of the 
l(y m IhHIi lufht^fxiaiid Mymology show, **lack of oonformiiy to 

r"lllWl«»«MI|liMN" "lUlV. Vf)rH.). 




DEFIlfrmOH OF SIK. 553 

8eelMkaS:17— "inimrishtooaaMiisia"; lUm.14 :23 — "vhatnmrisnotof ftJthisdn": Jam«4:17 
•> "To kin th«r«for« MuX kaovoCh to do good, and dooUi it not, to Um it is nn." Where the sin is that of 
not doing^ sin cannot be said to consist in ctet. It must then at least be a state. 

( c ) Moral evil is ascribed not only to the thoughts and affections, but 
to the heart from which thej spring ( we read of the " evil thoughts " and 
of the "evil heart "—Mat 15 : 19 and Heb. 3 :12). 

See also Hat. 5 : S — anger in the heart is murder; 28 — impure desire is adultery. Loko 
6 : 45 — "thooTil nan oat of tbo orU traMoro [ of his heart ] taringotk forth that wkiok isoTil" Hob. 3 : i2 — 
**aaoTilk«rtofuibeliof"; c/. U 1 : 5 — " tho vbolo koad ii tick, and tho vkolo koart fidnt"; Jor. i7 : 9 — " Tko 
kaart is dioeitfiil aboro all tkingi, and it is oxeeedingly oorrapt : i^ oan knov it? "— here the sin that cannot 
be known is not sin of act, but sin of the heart. ** Below the surface stream, shallow 
and lifrht. Of what we aay we feel ; below the stream. As light, of what we think we 
feel, there flows. With silent current, strong, obscure and deep. The central stream of 
what we feel indeed" 

( (2 ) The state or condition of the soul which gives rise to wrong desires 
and acts is expressly called sin ( Bom. 7 : 8 — ''Sin . . . wrought in me . . . 
all manner of coveting " ). 

Jokn8:84— "trnyonotkateommittetkiinistkobondierTantQfiin*'; Rom.7:ll. 13, 14,17, M— "dn . . . . 
bogailod me ... . working doatk to mo .... I am oanial, loldandorsin . . . . lin vkiok dvelletk in mo." These 
representations of sin as a principle or state of the soul are incompatible with the defi- 
nition of it as a mere act. John Ilyrom, 1691-1763 : ** Think and be careful what thou art 
within. For there is sin in the desire of sin. Think and be thankful in a different case. 
For there is grace in the desire of grace." 

Alexander, Theories of the Will, 85 — *' In the person of Paul is represented the man 
who has been already Justified by faith and who is at peace with God. In the dth chap- 
ter of Romans, the question is discussed whether such a man is obliged to keep the 
moral law. But in the 7th chapter the question is not, must man keep the moral law ? 
but why is he so ijic/iixible of keeping the moral law ? The struggle is thus, not in the 
soul of the unr^renerate man who is dead in sin, but in the soul of the regenerate man 
who has been pardoned and is endeavoring to keep the law. ... In a state of sin the 
will is determined toward the bad ; in a state of grace the will is determined toward 
righteousness ; but not wholly so, for the flesh is not at once subdued, and there is a 
war between the good and bad principles of action In the soul of him who has been 
pardoned.** 

(6) Sin is represented as ezistiug in the soul, prior to the conscious- 
ness of it, and as only discovered and awakened by the law ( Bom. 7:9, 10 
— "when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died" — if sin 
** revived," it must have had previous existence and life, even though it 
did not manifest itself in acts of conscious transgression). 

Rom. 7:8—" apart finom tho lav sin is dead " — here is sin which is not yet sin of act. Dead or 
unconscious sin is still sin. The fire in a cave discovers reptiles and stirs them, but they 
were there before ; the light and heat do not create them. Let a beam of light, says 
Jean Paul Kichter, through your window-shutter into a darkened i*oom, and you reveal 
a thousand motes floating in the air whose existence was before unsuspected. So the 
law of God reveals our "kidden fcnlts" ( Ps. 19 : 12) — infirmities, imperfections, evil tonden- 
oles and desires— which also cannot all be classed as acta of transgrression. 

(/) The allusions to sin as a permanent power or reigning principle, not 
only in the individual but in humanity at large, forbid us to define it as a 
momentary act, and compel us to regard it as being primarily a settled 
depravity of nature, of which individual sins or acts of transgression are 
the workings and fruits ( Bom. 5 : 21 — ** sin reigned in death " ; 6 : 12 — 
** let not therefore sin reign in your mortal body " ). 

In Rom. 5 :21, the reign of sin is compare<l t^) the rclgrn of grace. As grac<» is not an act 
but a principle, so sin is not an act but a principle. As the poisonous exhalations from 



554 ANTHROPOLOGTy OR THE DOCTRINE OF MAK. 

a well indicate that there is corruption and death at the bottom, so Uio ever-recuirliiff 
thoughts and acts of sin are evidence that there is a principle of sin in the heart,— in 
other words, that sin exists as a permanent disposition or state. A momentary act 
cannot " nign " nor " dwdl " ; a disposition or state can. Maudsley, Sleep, its Fsycholoery* 
makes the dt^mtj ging confession : ** If we were held responsible for our dreams, Uiere la 
no UviDg man who would not deserve to be hanged.** 

iff) The Mosaio sacrifices for sins of ignorance and of omission, and 
especially for general sinfulness, are evidence that sin is not to be limited 
to mere act, but that it includes something deeper and more permanent in 
the heart and the life (Lev. 1 : 8 ; 5 : 11 ; 12 : 8 ; c/. Luke 2 : 24). 

The sin-offering for sins of Ignorance ( Ley. 4 : ii 20; 81 ), the trespass-offering for sins of 
omission (L«t. 5 : 5^ 6 ), and the burnt offering to expiate general sinfulness (Ur. 1 : 8; e/« 
Lak« 2 : 22-24 ), all witness that sin is not confined to mere act. Joksi:29— *'th«Luibof6od,vko 
Uktik away tli* lin," not the sins, "ofth* vorU.** See Oehler, O. T. Theology, 1 : 233 ; Schmid, 
Bib. Thcol. N. T., 194, 381, 442, 448, 482, 004; Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 3 : 210-217; Julius 
Mtlller, Doctrine of Sin, 2 : 2SO-306 ; Edwards, Works, 8 : 16-18. For the New Sobool 
definition of sin, see Fitch, Nature of Sin, and Park, in Bib. Sao.« 7 : SSL 

B. From the common judgment of mankind. 

( a ) Men universally attribute vice as well as virtue not only to con- 
scious and deliberate acts, but also to dispositions and states. Belief in 
something more pennanentlj evil than acts of transgression is indicated in 
the common phrases, ** hateful temper," "wicked pride," "bad character." 

As the beatitudes ( HaL 5 : 1-12) are pronounced, not upon acts, but upon dispositions 
of the soul, so the curses of the law are uttered not so much against single acts of trans- 
gression as against the evil affections from which they spring. Ck>mpare the *'vwksof 
tfa«fl«sh"(Gd.5:19)withthe''frTutoftheSpirit"(5:22). Inboth, dispositions and states pre- 
dominate. 

( 6 ) Outward acts, indeed, are condemned only when they are regarded 
as originating in, and as symptomatic of, evil dispositions. Civil law pro- 
ceeds upon this principle in holding crime to consist, not alone in the 
external act, but also in the evil motive or intent with which it is per- 
formed. 

The mens rea is essential to the idea of crime. The "idl« 'vord** (lat 18 : 86) shall be 
brought into the Judgment, not because it is so important in itself, but because it is a 
fioating straw that indicates the direction of the whole current of the heart and life. 
Murder differs from homicide, not In any outward respect, but simply because of the 
motive that prompts it,— and that motive is always, in the last analysis, an evil dispo- 
sition or state. 

( ) The stronger an evil disposition, or in other words, the more it 
connects itself with, or resolves itself into, a settled state or condition of 
the soul, the more blameworthy is it felt to be. This is shown by the 
distinction drawn between crimes of passion and crimes of deliberation. 

Edwards : " Guilt consists in having one's heart wrong, and in doing wrong from the 
heart." There is guilt in evil desires, even when the will combats them. But there is 
greater guilt when the will consents. The outward act may be in each case the same, 
but the guilt of it is proportioned to the extent to which the evil disposition is settled 
and strong. 

(d) This condemning sentence remains the same, even although the 
origin of the evil disposition or state cannot be traced back to any conscious 
act of the individual. Neither the general sense of mankind, nor the civil 
law in which this general sense is expressed, goes behind the fact of an 



DEFINITION OF SIN. 555 

imufcing evil wiU. Whether this evil wiQ is the result of personal trans- 
gression or is a hereditary bias derived from generations passed, this eviJ 
will IS the man himself, fjid upon him terminates the blame. We do not 
excuse arrogance or sensuality upon the ground that thej are bunilj traits. 

Hie young murderer in Boston was not exonsed upon the ground of a congenitally 
oruel disposition. Wo repent in later years of sins of boyhood, which we only now see 
to be sins ; and oonvertod cannibals repent, after becoming Christians, of the sins of 
heathendom which they once committed without a thought of their wickedness. The 
peaoook cannot escape from his feet by flying, nor can we absolve ourselves from blame 
for an evQ state of will by tracing its origin to a remote ancestry. We are responsible 
for what we are. How this can bo, when we have not personally and consciously origi* 
nated it, is the problem of original sin, which we have yet to discuss. 

( 6 ) When any evil disposition has such strength in itself, or is so com- 
bined with others, as to indicate a settled moral corruption in which no 
power to do good remains, this state is regarded with the deepest disappro- 
bation of alL Sin weakens man's power of obedience, but the can-not is a 
will-not» and is therefore condemnable. The opposite principle would 
lead to the conclusion that, the more a man weakened his powers by trans- 
gression, the less guilty he would be, until absolute depravity became 
absolute innocence. 

The boy who hates his father cannot change his hatred into love by a single act of 
will ; but he is not therefore innocent Spontaneous and uncontrollable profanity is 
the worst profanity of alL It is a sign that the whole will, like a subterranean Ken- 
tucky river, is moving away from Ood, and that no recuperative power is left in the 
soul which can reach into the depths to reverse its course. See Domer, Olaubenslehre, 
8 : 110-lU ; Shedd, Hist. Doct., 2 : 7»-02« 1!)3-157 ; Richards, Lectures on Theology, 255-301 ; 
Bdwards, Works, 2 : 134 ; Baird, Elohim Bevealed, 243-262 ; Princeton Essays, 2 : 224-280 ; 
Van Oosterzee, Dofirmatics, 894. 

0. From the experience of the Christian. 

Christian experience is a testing of Scripture truth, and therefore is not 
an independent source of knowledge. It may, however, corroborate con- 
clusions drawn from the word of God. Since the judgment of the Christian 
is formed under the influence of the Holy Spirit, we may trust this more 
implicitly than the general sense of the world. We affirm, then, that just 
in proportion to his spiritual enlightenment and self-knowledge, the Chris- 
tian 

( a ) Regards his outward deviations from God*8 law, and his evil incli- 
nations and desires, as outgrowths and revelations of a depravity of nature 
which lies below his consciousness ; and 

( 6 ) Bepents more deeply for this depravity of nature, which constitutes 
his inmost character and is inseparable from himself, than for what he 
merely feels or does. 

In proof of these statements we appeal to the biographies and writings 
of those in all ages who have been by general consent regarded as most 
advanced in spiritual culture and discernment. 

** Intelligentia prima est, ut te norls pecoatorem.*' Compare David's experience, Fn 
Gl:6 — '*B«hold,tlioad«ire8t troth hi tba in vard puts: And in the UddflU part thoa vittaukametoknow visdam** 
— with Paul's experience in Rom. 7 : 24 — '*Wratehad man that! am I vho ahall dalirar m« oat of the body of 
Ois death ?** — with Isaiah's experience (6:5), when in the presence of God's glory ho uses 
the words of the leper ( Ler. 13 : 45 ) and calls himself " nndean," and with Peter's experience 
(lake 5; 8) when at the manifestation of ChrisVs miraculous power he "fdldovnaUflmir 



SM ASTBMOFOLOGT, OE THX DOCTKUrB Of MAS. 




■t'.irlaaftifafclBi^t^fll* So Ike 
a;3i, and Ptail odlt hinMdf tfae *ai 
tancioe of tbcaecaces were tbere aKiclj 
; tk* knmilkutoo and teif-atAorreooe were in 
d eytJ^ttf* TanOctftcrsw: '^WtaicKwedDoatwBnllTSianljtheiereiBtioaoCoarfniMr 
Bfftafeu** Tbe oatcropf»iiw and riafUe rock is bvt snail in extent compared with tka 
roiA that ia uM lef l i iKi g and inTMibie, Tbe ket>erv !■■ efgrhcnintha of tu mas below 
of the an, jei ieeterga liBve been seen near Gape Honk Cron 3» to 80i feet 




It BUij be doabced whether any repentanee is gemzine which la not lepentanoe for 
«te father than for «in«; compare J«a;i: I -the Hulj Spirit *wJl «BTia *■ wkU m iwpirt if 
fia" On the dlliwriMe between eonriction of &ina and conTidion of tfn, aee Hare« 
Wart on of the Comforter. Dr. A. J. Gordon, juet before his death* deKi«d to be left 
alone. Be was then orerfaeard confcaBin^his sins insoch seeminvljcAtiavacant terma 
aatoexcttefenrthathewaslndeUriiun. )lartenaen,I>c«niasiGa.9B»— Lather dnrinv 
Ua early experience** often wrote toScanpitx: *Oh, mrsinft»flKj sins!' and jet in the 
eonffssiiinal be could name nosliv in particular which he bad to ccofeas; so that It 
waacleariy a sense of the general d ep t a%iiy of his nature which flited his aoul with deep 

m/rrr/w mad pain.** Lather's oooadenoe would not accept the comfcrt that be vithtd 
to be without sin, and therefore had no real sin. When he thought himself too great a 
sinner to be mred,8taapiu replied: ** Would you hare the semblance of a anner and 
the lemUanoe of a Sarior ? '^ 

After twenty yean of religious experienoe, Jonathan Edwards wrote ( Wortss 1:2^ 
21: also 3:IS-1B): **Often since I bave Ured in th» town I bave had Tery affecting 
riews of my own sinf nlnesa and rilenesB, very frequently to such a degree as to hold 
me in a kind of loud weeping, sometimes for a considerable time together, so tbat I 
hare been often obliged to sbnt mjrself up. I have bad a TastJy greater sense of my 
own wickedness and the bainess of my heart tban ever I bad before my oun version. 
It has often appeared to me that if God siioukl marlE iniquity against me. I should 
appear the very worst of all mankind, of all that have been since the b eginning of the 
world to this time; and that I should have by far the lowest place in belL Wbenotbeta 
that have come to talk with me about their soul*s concerns bave expressed thei 
they have bad of their own wickedneas. by ssying that it seemed to them they 
badastbe devil himself ; I thought their expressions sesmedexoeedinff faint and feehia 
to repreaent my wickedness." 

Bdwards continues : ** My wickedness, as I am in myself, has kmg appeared to me 
perfectly ineffable and swallowing up all thought and imagination — like an Infinite 
deluge, or mountains over my bead. I know not how to express better what my sins 
appear to me to be, than by heaping infinite on infinite and multiplying Infinite by 
Infinite. Tery often for these many years, these expressions are in my ndnd and In my 
mouth : *■ Infinite upon Infinite — infinite upon infinite I ' When I look into my heart 
and take a view of my wickedness, it looks like an abyss infinitely deeper thanhelL 
And it appears to me that were it not for free grace, exalted and raised up to the 
infinite heigbt of all the fulness and glory of the great Jehovah, and the arm of his power 
and grace stretched forth in all the majesty of his power and In all the glory of his 
sovereignty, I should appear sunk down In my sins below bell itself, far beyond the 
sight of everythinir but the eye of sovereign grace that can pierce even down to such 
a depth. And yet it seems to me that my conviction of sin is exceeding small and 
faint; it is enough to amaae me that I have no more sense of my sin. I know certainly 
that I have very little sense of my sinfulness. When I have had turns of weeping for 
my sins. I thought I Imew at the time that my repentance was nothing to my sin. 
.... It is affecting to think how ignorant I was, when a young Christian, of the 
bottomless, infinite depths of wickedness, pride, hypocrisy, and deceit left in my heart.'* 

Jonathan Edwards was not an tmgodly man, but the holiest nmn of his time. He was 
not an enthusiast, but a man of acute, philosophic mind. He was not a man who 
indulged in exaggerated or random statements, for with his power of introspection and 
analysis he combined a faulty and habit of exact expression unsurpassed among the 
sons of men. If the maxim ** cuique in arte sua crcdendimi est ** is of any value* 
Edwards's statements in a matter of religious ex^ierience are to be taken as correct 
interpretations of the facts. H. B. Smith (System. TheoL, 2T5) quotes Thomasius as 
saying : ** It is a striking fact in Scripture that statements of the depth and power of sin 
are chiefly from the regenerate.** Another has said that ^ a serpent is never seen at its 
iteigthuntUltisdead.** Thomas d Kempls (ed. Gould and Linoolii,l4S)—** Do 




DEFixmoK OP siifr. 657 

not think that thou hast made anj progress toward perfection, till thou feelest that 
thou artless than the least of all human bein^rs." Younif's Night Thoughts : ** Heaven^s 
Sovereign saves all beings but himself That hideous sight — a nalced human heart.'* 

Law's Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life : ** You may Justly condemn yourself 
for being the greatest sinner that you know, 1. Because you know more of the folly 
of your own heart than of other people's, and can charge yourself with various sins 
which you know only of yourself and cannot be sure that others are guilty of them. 
2. The greatness of our guilt arises from the greatness of God's goodness to us. You 
know more of these aggravations of your sins than you do of the sins of other people. 
Hence the greatest saints tiave in all ages condemned themselves as the greatest sin- 
ners.*' We may add : 3. That, since each man is a peculiar being, each man is guilty of 
peculiar sins, and in certain particulars and aspects may constitute an example of the 
enormity and hatefulness of sin, such as neither earth nor hell can elsewhere show. 

Of Cromwell, as a representative of the Puritans, Green says ( Short History of the 
English People, 454 ) : ** The vivid sense of the divine Purity close to such men, made 
the life of common men seem sin.'* Dr. Arnold of Rugby ( Life and Corresp., App. D. ) : 
** In a deep sense of moral evil, more perhaps than anything else, abides a saving 
knowledge of God." Augustine, on his death-bed, had the 8S9d Psalm written over 
against him on the wall. For his expressions with regard to sin, see his Oonfessionfl, 
book 10. See also Shedd, Discoursee and Essays, 284, note. 

2. Inferences. 

In the light of the preceding diaonssion, we may properlj estimate the 
elements of truth and of error in the common definition of sin as ' the 
Yolontary transgression of known law. ' 

(a) Not all sin is voluntary as being a distinct and conscious volition ; 
for evil dis|>ositlon and state often precede and occasion evil volition, and 
evil disposition and state are themselves sin. All sin, however, is voluntary 
as springing either directly from will, or indirectly from those perverse 
affections and desires which have themselves originated in wilL ' Volun- 
tary ' is a term broader than ' volitional,' and includes all those permanent 
states of intellect and affection which the will has made what they are. Will, 
moreover, is not to be regarded as simply the faculty of volitions, but as 
primarily the underlying determination of the being to a supreme end. 

Will, as we have seen, includes preference ( ^Aij/mo, v6lunia»^ WUle ) as well as volition 
( ^ovA1}, arbiirium, WiUkiXr ). We do not, with Edwards and Hodge, regard the sensi- 
bilities as states of the will. They are, however, in their character and their objects 
determined by the will, and so they may be called voluntary. The permanent state of 
the will ( New School *' elective preference ") is to be distinguished from the permanent 
state of the sensibilities ( dispositions, or desires ). But both are voluntary because both 
are due to past decisions of the will, and " whatever springs from will we are respon- 
sible for" (Shedd, Discourses and Essays, 243). Julius MUller, 2:61 — "We speak of 
self-consciousness and reason as something which the ego /los, but we identify the will 
with the ego. No one would say. * my will has decided this or that,' although we do say, 
* my reason, my conscience teaches me this or that.* The will is the very man himself, 
as Augustine says : * Voluntas est in omnibus ; imo omnes nihil aliud quam voluntates 
sunt.' " 

For other statements of the relation of disposition to will, see Alexander, Moral 
Science, 151 — *'In regard to dispositions, we say that they are in a sense voluntary. 
They properly belong to the will, taking the word in a large sense. In Judging of the 
morality of voluntary acts, the principle from which they proceed is always included 
in our view and comes in for a large part of the blame " ; see also pages 201, 207, 808. 
Edwards on the Affections, 3 : 1-22 ; on the Will, 3:4 — " The affections are only certain 
modes of the exercise of the will." A. A. Hodge, OutUnes of Theology, 234 — " All sin 
is voluntary, in the sense that all sin has its root in the perverted dispositions, desires, 
and affections which constitute the depraved state of the will." But to Alexander, 
Edwards, and Hodge, we reply that the first sin was not voluntary in this sense, for 
there was no such depraved state of the will from which it could spring. We are 



558 ANTHROPOLOGY, OB THE DOCTRINB OF MAK. 

responsible for diipositions, not upon the iround that they are a part of the will, but 
upon the ground that they are effects of will, in other words, that past decisions of the 
will have made them what they are. See pa^ee 501-613. 

( 6 ) Deliberate intention to sin is an aggravation of transgression, bnt it 
is not essential to constitute any given act or feeling a sin. Those evil 
inclinations and impulses which rise unbidden and master the soul before 
it is well aware of their nature, are themselves violations of the divine law, 
and indications of an inward depravity which in the case of each descen- 
dant of Adam is the chief and f ontal transgression. 

Joseph Cook : ** Only the surface-water of the sea is penetrated with Ugrht. Beneath 
is a half-lit region. Still further down is absolute darkness. We are greater than we 
know." Weismann, Heredity, 2 : 8 — *' At the depth of 170 meters, or 55S feet, there is 
about as much lifrht as that of a starligrht ni^ht when there is no moon. Lifirht pene- 
trates as far as 400 meters, or 1,300 feet, but animal life exists at a depth of 4,000 meters, 
or 13,000 feet. Below 1,300 feet, all animals are blind.'* cy. Pi. Si : 8 ; 19 : 12 — " tk« invird parts 
. . . th« kidden parts .... kiddn fkalti"— hidden not only from others, but even from our- 
selves. The light of consciousness plays only on the surface of the waters of man's 
souL 

( c ) Knowledge of the sinfulness of an act or feeling is also an aggrava- 
tion of transgression, but it is not essential to constitute it a sin. Moral 
blindness is the effect of transgression, and, as inseparable from corrupt 
affections and desires, is itself condemned by the divine law. 

It is our duty to do better than we know. Our duty of knowing is as real as our duty 
of doingr. Sin is an opiate. Some of the most deadly diseases do not reveal themselves 
in the patient's countenance, nor has the patient any adequate understanding of his 
malady. There is an iernorance which is indolence. Men are often unwillinsr to take the 
trouble of rectifyingr their standards of Judgrment. There is also an ignorance which is 
intention. Instance many students' ifirnorance of College laws. 

Wo cannot excuse disobedience by saying : ^ I forgot." God's commandment is : 
'^Remember " — as in Ex. 20 : 8 ; c/. 2 Pet 3 : 5 — " Por this tkej vilfollj forgvU" *' Ignorantia legis nemi- 
nem cxcusat." Rom. 2:12— "as manj as hare sumad Yitkoat th« lav shall also perish vithont the lav"; 
Uks 12:48— "ha that knaw not, and did things vorthj of stripat, shall be baatja [ though ] with fbvstripes." 
The aim of revelation and of preaching is to bring man "tohimaolf" (c/. Lake 15: 17) — to 
show him what he has been doing and what he is. Goethe : ** We are never deceived : we 
deceive ourselves." Koyce, World and Individual, 2:350— "The sole possible free 
moral action is then a freedom that relates to the present fixing of attention upon the 
ideas of the Ought which are already present. To sin is ct)McUnuily to choose to foTQet^ 
through a narrowing of the field of attention, an Ought that one already recognizes." 

{d) Ability to fulfill the law is not essential to constitute the non-fulfil- 
ment sin. Inability to fulfill the law is a residt of trausf^^ession, and, as 
consisting not in an original deficiency of faculty but in a settled state of 
the affections and will, it is itself oondemnable. Since the law presents 
the holiness of God as the only standard for the creature, ability to obey 
can never be the measure of obligation or the test of sin. 

Not power to the contrary, in the sense of ability to change all our permanent states 
by mere volition, is the basis of obligation and responsibility ; for surely Satan's respon- 
sibility does not depend upon his power at any moment to turn to God and be holy. 

Definitions of sin — Melanchthon : Dcfectus vel inclinatio vel actio pugnans cum lege 
Dei. Calvin : niegalitas, scu difTormitas a lege. Hollaz: Aberratioalegedlvina. Hoi- 
laz adds: ''Voluntariness does not enter into the definition of sin, generically con- 
sidered. Sin may be called voluntary, either in respect to its cause, as it inheres in the 
will, or in respect to the act, as it precedes from deliberate volition. Here is the 
antithesis to the Roman Catholics and to the Soclnians, the latter of whom define sin as 
a voluntary [i. c, a volitional] transgression of law"— a view, says Hase ( Hutterus 
Redivlvus, 11th ed., 183-164), ''which is derived from the necessary methods of civil 
tribunals, and which is incompatible with the orthodox doctrine of original sin." 



THB ESSENTIAL PEINCIPLE OF SIK. 659 

» 

On the New School deflnitton of gin, aco Eaircbild, Nature of Sin, in Bib. Sac., 25 : 80- 
48; Whedon, in Bib. Sao., 19 : 251, and On the Will, 3S8. Per eotitrcu, see Hodge, Syst. 
Theol., 2: 180-190; Lawrence, Old School in N. E. Theol., in Bib. Sac., 20 : 817-328 ; Julius 
HtUler, Doc. Sin, 1:40-72; Nitssoh, Christ. Doct., 216; Luthardt, Oompendium der 
Dogmatik, 124-126. 

n. Thb Esskmtial Pbinoiflb of Sm. 

The definition of sin as lack of oonformity to the divine law does not 
exclude, but rather necessitates, an inquiry into the characterizing motive 
or impelling power which explains its existence and constitutes its guilt. 
Only three views require extended examination. Of tliese the first two 
constitute the most common excuses for sin, although not propounded for 
this purpose by their authors : Sin is due ( 1 ) to the human body, or ( 2 ) 
to finite weakness. The third, which we regard as the Scriptural view, 
considers sin as ( 3 ) the supreme choice of self, or selfishness. 

In the preceding section on the Definition of Sin, we showed that sin is 
a state, and a state of the will. We now ask : What is the nature of this 
state ? and we expect to show that it is essentially a aelflah state of the wilL 

1. Sin as Sensuousness. 

This view regards sin as the necessary product of man's sensuous nature 
— a result of the soul's connection with a physical organism. This is the 
view- of Schleiermacher and of Bothe. More recent writers, with John 
Fiske, regard moral evil as man's inheritance from a brute ancestry. 

For statement of the view here opposed, see Schleiermacher, Der Christliche Olaube, 
1 : 361-864—** Sin is a prevention of the deterinininfr power of the spirit, caused by the 
independence (SelbstHndlflrkeit) of the sensuous functions.*' The child lives at first a 
life of sense, in which the bodily appetites are supreme. The senses are the avenues of 
all temptation, the physical domineers over the spiritual, and the soul never shakes off 
the body. Sin is, therefore, a malarious exhalation from the low ^rounds of human 
nature, or, to use the words of Schleiermacher, ** a positive opposition of the flesh to the 
spirit.'* Pfleiderer, Prot. Theol. selt Kant, 113,— says that Schleiermacher here repeats 
Spinoza*s ** inability of the spirit to control the sensuous affections." Pfleiderer, Philos. 
Beliirion,l:230—** In the development of man out of naturality, the lower impulses 
have already won a power of self-assertion and resistance, before the reason could yet 
oome to its valid position and authority. As this propensity of the self-will is grroundcd 
in the speciflc nature of man, it may be designated as inborn, hereditary, or original 
sinfulness." 

Kothe's view of sin may be found in his Dogmatlk, 1 : 800-3QS ; notice the connection 
of Rothe's view of sin with his doctrine of continuous creation (see page 416 of this 
Compendium ). Encyclopesdia Brltannica, 21 : 2—** Rothe was a thorough going evolu- 
tionist who regarded the natural man as the consummation of the development of 
physical nature, and regarded spirit as the personal attainment, with divine help, of 
those beings in whom the further creative process of moral development is carried on. 
This process of development necessarily takes an abnormal form and passes through 
the phase of sin. This abnormal condition necessitates a fresh creative act, that of 
solvation, which was however from the very first a part of the divine plan of develop- 
ment. Rothe, notwithstanding his evolutionary doctrine, believed in the supematuiiil 
birth of Christ.*' 

John Fiske, Destiny of Man, 106 — ** Original sin is neither more nor less than the brute 
inheritance which every man carries with him, and the process of evolution is an 
advance toward true solvation.** Thus man is a sphynx in whom the human has not 
yet escaped from the animaL So Bowne, Atonement, 60, declares that sin is ** a relic of 
the animal not yet outgrown, a resultant of the mechanism of appetite and impulse and 
reflez action for which the proper inhibitions are not yet developed. Only slowly does 
it grow into a consciousness of itself as oviL .... It would be hysteria to regard the 
common life of men as rooting in a conscious choice of unrighteousness." 



560 ANTHROPOLOQYy OB THE DOCTBIKE OF XAlfT. 

In refutation of thifl view, it will be sufficient to urge the following oon-' 
dderatiouB : 

( a ) It involves an assumption of the inherent evil of matter, at least ao 
far as regards the substance of man's body. But this is either a form of 
dualism, and may be met with the objections already brought against tbai 
system, or it implies that God, in being the author of man's phyaioal 
organism, is also the responsible originator of human sin. 

This has been called the ** oaged-eagle theory '* of man's ezisteiiioe; it holds that the 
body is a prison only, or, as Plato expressed it, '* the tomb of the soul,*' so that the soul 
can be pure only by escapinjr from the body. But matter is not etemaL Qod made it, 
and made it pure. The body was made to be the servant of the spirit. We must not 
throw the blame of sin upon the senses, but upon the spirit that used the senses so 
wickedly. To attribute sin to the body is to make God, the author of the body, to be 
also the author of sin,— which is the greatest of blasphemies. Men cannot ^Justly 
accuse Their Maker, or their making, or their fate *' ( Milton, Paradise Lost, 8 : 112 ). Sin 
is a contradiction within the spirit itself, and not simply between the spbit and the 
flesh. Sensuous activities are not themselves sinful— this is essential Manichaeanism. 
Robert Bums was wrong when he laid the blame for his delinquencies upon *^the pas- 
sions wild and strong." And Samuel Johnson was wrong when he said that "Every 
man is a rascal so soon as he is sick." The normal soul has power to rise above both 
passion and sickness and to make them serve its moral development. On the develop- 
ment of the body, as the organ of sin, see Straffen's Hulsean Lectures on Sin, 83-60. 
The essential error of this view is its identification of the moral with the physioaL If 
it were true, then Jesus, who came in human flesh, must needs be a sinner. 

(6) In explaining sin as an inheritance from the brute, this theoxj 
ignores the fact that man, even though derived from a brute ancestry, is no 
longer brute, but man, with power to recognize and to realize moral ideals* 
and under no necessity to violate the law of his being. 

See A. H. Strong, Christ in Creation, 163-180, on The Fall and the Redemption of Man, 
in the Light of Evolution : ** Evolution has been thought to be incompatible with any 
proper doctrine of a falL It has been assumed by many that man's immoral course 
and conduct are simply survivals of his brute inheritanoe, inevitable remnants of his 
old animal propensities, yieldings of the weak will to fleshly appetites and passions. 

This is to deny that sin is truly sin, but it is also to deny that man is truly man 

Sin must be referred to freedom, or it is not sin. To explain it as the natural result of 
weak will overmastered by lower impulses is to make the animal nature, and not the 
will, the cause of transgression. And that is to say that man at the beginning is not 
man. but brute." See also D. W. Simon, in Bib. Sac., Jan. 1897 : 1-20—" The key to the 
strange and dark contrast between man and his animal ancestry is to be found in the 
fact of the Full. Other species live normally. No remnant of the reptile hinders the 
bird. The bird is a true bird. Only man falls to live normally and is a true man only 
after ages of sin and misery.** Harlowe very properly makes his Faustus to be tempted 
by sensual baits only after he has sold himself to Satan for power. 

To regrard vanity, deoeitfulness, malice, and revenge as inherited from brute ancestors 
i» to deny man's original innocence and the creatorship of God. B. W. Lockhart : ** The 
animal mind knows not God, is not subject to his law, neither indeed can be. Just 
because it is animal, and as such is incapable of right or wrong. . • • • If man were an 
animal and nothing more, he could not sin. It is by virtue of being something more, 
that he becomes capable of sin. Sin is the yielding of the known higher to the known 
lower. It is the soul's abdication of its being to the brute. • . • Hence the need of 
spiritual forces from the spiritual world of divine revelation, to heal and build and 
dUcipliue the soul within itself, giving it the victory over the animal passions which 
^institute the body and over the kingdom of blind desire which constitutes the world. 
The flnal puri>oee of man is growth of the soul into liberty, truth, love, likeness to 
G(h1. Education is the word that covers the movement, and probation is incident to 
education." We add that n»iiaration for past sin and renewing power from above must 
ition, in order to make eduoation possible. 




THE ESSENTIAL PRINCIPLE OF SIN. 661 

• 

Some recent writers hold to a real fall of man, and yet renrard that fall as necessary 
to hia moral development. Emma Marie Caillard, in Contemp. Rev., Dec 1803:879 — 
** Man passed out of a state of innocence — unconscious of his own imperfection — into 
a state of consciousness of it. The will became slave Instead of master. The result 
would have been the complete stoppaifo of his evolution but for redemption, which 
restored his will and made the continuance of his evolution possible. Incarnation was 
the method of redemption. But oven apart from the fall, this jncamatlon would have 
been ncccsasiry to reveal to man the goal of his evolution and so to secure his co{>pera- 
tion in It.*' Lisle, Evolution of Sphitual Man, 39, and in Bib. Sac., July, 1892:431-452— 
*' Evolution by catastrophe In the natural world has a strikini? analoirue in the spiritual 
world. .... Sin is primarily not so much a fall from a higher toji lower, as a failure 
to rise from a lower to a higher ; not so much eating of the forbidden tree, as failure to 
partake of the tree of life. Tlie latter represented communion and correspondence 
with Ood, and had innocent man continued to reach out for this, he would not have 
fallen. Man's refusal to choose the higher preceded and conditioned his fall to the 
lower, and the essence of sin is therefore in this refusal, whatever may cause the will to 
make it. . . . Man chose the lower of his own free wilL Then his centripetal force was 
gone. His development was swiftly and endlessly away from Ood. He reverted to his 
original type of savage animalism ; and yet, as a self-conscious and free-acting being, 
he retained a sense of responsibility that filled him with fear and suffering.** 

On the development-theory of sin, see W. W. McLane, in New Englandcr, 1891 : 180-188 ; 
A. B. Bruce, Apologetics, 60-62; Lyman Abbott, Evolution of Christianity, 203-208; 
Le Conte, Evolution, 330, 365-375 : Henry Drummond, Ascent of Man, 1-13, 829, 842; Salem 
Wilder, Life, its Nature, 260-273 ; Wm. Graham, Creed of Science, 38-44; Frank H. Foster, 
Evolution and the Evangelical System ; Chandler, The Spirit of Man, 45-47. 

( c) It rests upon on incomplete induction of facts, taking account of sin 
solely in its aspect of self -degradation, but ignoring the worst aspect of it as 
self-exaltation. Avarice, envy, pride, ambition, malice, cruelty, revenge, 
self-righteousness, unbelief, enmity to God, are none of them fleshly sins, 
and upon this principle are incax>able of explanation. 

Two historical examples may suffice to show the insufficiency of the sensuous theory 
of sin. Goethe was not a markedly sensual man ; yet the spiritual vivisection which 
he practised on Fricderike Brion, his perfidious misrepresentation of his relations with 
Keetner's wife in the ** Sorrows of Werther," and his flattery of Napoxeon, when a 
patriot would have scorned the advances of the invader of his country, show Goethe to 
have been a very incarnation of heartlessness and selfishness. The patriot Boerne said 
of him : " Not once has he ever advanced a poor solitary word In his country's cause — 
he who from the lofty height he has attained might speak out what none otiier but 
himself would dare pronounce.** It has been said that Goethe's first commandment to 
genius was : ** Thou shalt love thy neighbor and thy neighbor's wife.** His biographers 
count up sixteen women to whom he made love and who reciprocated his affection, 
though it is doubtful whether he contented himself with the doctrine of 16 to 1. As 
Sainte-Beuve said of Chateaubriand's attachments : ** They are like the stars in the sky, 
—the longer you look, the more of them you discover.** Christiane Vulpius, after 
being for seventeen years his mistress, became at last his wife. But the wife was so 
slighted that she was driven to intemperance, and Gootho^s only son inherited her 
passion and died of drink. Goethe was the great heathen of modem Christendom, 
deriding self-denial, extolling self-confidence, attention to the present, the seeking of 
enjojrment, and the subw ission of one's self to the decrees of fate. Hutton colls Goethe 
••a Narcissus in love w»th himself.** Like George Eliot's "Dinah,'* in Adam Bede, 
6oetho*s " Confessions of a Beautiful Soul,'* in Wilhelm Meister, are the purely artistic 
delineation of a character with which he had no inner sympathy. On Goethe, see Hut- 
ton, Essays, 2 : 1-79 : Shedd, Dogm. Theology, 1 : 490; A. H. Strong, Great Poets, S79-331 ; 
Principal Shairp, Culture and Ueligion, 16— " Goethe, the high priest of culture, loathes 
Luther, the preacher of righteousness ** ; S. Law Wilson, Theology of Modem Literar 
tims 149-156. 

Napoleon was not a markedly sensual man, but ** his self-sufficiency surpassed the 
self-sufficiency of common men as the great Sahara desert surpasses an ordinary sand 
patch.** He wantonly divulged his amours to Josephine, with all the details of his ill- 
conduct, and when she revolted from them, he only replied : ** I have the right to meet 
all vour complaints with an eternal I.'* When his wars had left almost no able-bodied 

36 



562 AKTHBOPOLOGYy OB THE DOCTBIHE OF MAN. 

men In France, he called for the boys, saying : ** A boy can stop a bullet as well as a 
man/* and so the French nation lost two inches of stature. Before the battle of Leipzig, 
when there was prospect of unexampled slaughter, he exclaimed : *^ What are the lives 
of a million of men, to carry out the will of a man like me ? '* His most truthful epitaph 
was : *• The little butchers of Ghent to Napoleon the Great ** [ butcher J. Heine repre- 
sents Napoleon as saying to the world : ** Thou shalt have no other gods before me.*' 
Memoirs of Madame de Rerausut, 1 :2:25~ *' At a f6te given by the oity of Paris to the 
Emperor, the repertory of inscriptions being exhausted, a brilliant device was resorted 
to. Over the throne which he was to occupy, were placed, in letters of gold, the follow- 
ing words from the Holy Scriptures : * I am the I am.' And no one seemed to be scan- 
dalized." lago, in Shakespeare's Othello, is the greatest \illain of all literature ; but 
Coleridge, Works, 4 : 180, calls attention to his passionless character. His sin is, like 
that of Goethe and of Napoleon, sin not of the flesh but of the intellect and will. 

{d) It leads to absnrd oonclasions, — as» for example, that asceticism, by 
weakening the power of sense, must weaken the power of sin ; that man 
becomes less sinfiil as his senses fail with age ; that disembodied spirits are 
necessarily holy ; that death is the only Redeemer. 

Asceticism only turns the current of sin in other directions. Spiritual pride and 
tyranny take the place of fleshly desires. The miser clutches his gold more closely as 
he nears death. Satan has no physical organism, yet he is the prince of evlL Not our 
own death, but Christ's death, saves us. But when Bousseau's £mile comes to die, ho 
calmly declares: "I am delivered from the trammels of the l>ody, and am mjrsclf 
without contradiction." At the age of seventy-flve Goethe wrote to Eckermann : '*! 
have ever been esteemed one of fortune's favorites, nor can I complain of the course 
my life has taken. Yet truly there has been nothing but care and toil, and I may 
Bay that I have never had four weeks of genuine pleasure." Shedd, Dogm. Theology, 
8 : 743 — ** When the authoritative demand of Jesus Christ, to confess sin and beg remis- 
sion through atoning blood, is made to David Hume, or David Strauss, or John Stuart 
MilU none of whom were sensualists, it wakens intense mental hostility." 

( 6) It interprets Scripture erroneously. In passages like Bom. 7 : 18 — 

oifK oiKsl kv ifioi^ Toirr* iartv h ry aapxi fiov^ aya^&dv — odp^, or flesh, signifies, not 
man's body, but man's whole being when destitute of the Spirit of God. 
The Scriptures distinctly recognize the seat of sin as being in the soul 
itself, not in its physical organism. €k>d does not tempt man, nor has he 
made man's nature to tempt him ( James 1 : 13, 14). 

In the use of the term "flflsh," Scripture puts a stigma upon sin, and intimates that 
human nature without God is as corruptible and perishable as the body would be with^ 
out the soul to inhabit it. The *' carnal mind," or "mind of th« flesh " ( Rom. 8:7), accordingly 
means, not the sensual mind, but the mind which is not under the control of the Holy 
Spirit, its true life. See Meyer, on 1 Cor. 1:26 — <rdp^—** the purely human element in 
man, as opposed to the divine principle"; Pope, Theology, 2:65— <rapf—" the whole 
being of man, body, soul, and spirit, separated from God and subjected to the creature " ; 
Julius MUller, Proof-texts, 19— <rdp^ « *' human nature as living in and for Itself, sun- 
dered from God and opposed to him." The earliest and best statement of this view of 
the term <rap$ is that of Julius MUller, Doctrine of Sin, 1 : 295-033, especially 821. See 
also Dickson, St. Paul's Use of the Terms Flesh and Spirit, 270-271 — <rap^ - ** human 
nature without the wtOiia .... man standing by himself, or left to himself, over 
against God .... the natural man, conceived as not having yet received grace, or as 
not yet wholly under its influence." 

James 1:14, 15— *'deiire, whan it hath concoiTad, bearetli tin "— innocent desire— for it comes in 
before the sin — innocent constitutional propensity, not yat of the nature of depravity. 
Is only the occasion of sin. The love of freedom is a part of our nature ; sin arises only 
when the will determines to indulge this impulse without regard to the restraints of 
the divine law. Luther, Preface to Ep. to Romans : ** Thou must not understand * flesh • 
as though that only were * flesh ' which is connected with unchastity. St. Paul uses 
' flesh ' of the whole man, body and soul, reason and all his faculties included, because 
all that is in him longs and strives after the * flesh' ." Melanchthon : *' Note that * flesh' 
signifies the entire nature of man, sense and reason, without the Holy Spirit." Gouldt 




THE ESSENTIAL PRINCIPLE OF SIK. 663 

Bib. Theol. N. T., 76 — '*The vip^ of Paul corresponds to the K6<rtu>t of John. Paul 
sees the divine economy ; John the divine nature. That Paul did not hold sin to consist 
in the possession of a body appears from his doctrine of a bodily resurrection ( 1 Cor. 
15 : 38-49 X This resurrection of the body is an integral part of immortality." On <r^, 
see Thayer, N. T. Lexicon, 571 ; Kaftan, Doermatik, 819. 

(/) Instead of explainiiig sin, this theory virtually denies its existence, 
— for if sin arises from the original constitution of our being, reason may 
recognize it as misfortone, bnt conscience cannot attribute to it guilt. 

Sin which In its ultimate orisrin is a necessary thing is no longer sin. On the whole 
theory of the sensuous origin of sin, see Neander, Planting and Training, 380, 428; 
Emesti, Ursprung der Sttnde, 1:2»-2T4; Phllippl, Glaubenslehre, 2:132-147; Tulloch, 
Doctrine of Sin, 144 — ^ That which Is an inherent and necessary power In the creation 
cannot be a contradiction of its highest law.** This theory confounds sin with the 
mere consciousness of sin. On Schleiermaoher, see Julius MUller, Doctrine of Sin, 
1 : 341-349. On the sense- theory of sin in general, see John Oalrd, Fund. Ideas of Chris-, 
tlanlty, 2 : 26-62 ; N. R. Wood, The Witness of Sin, 79-87. 

2. Sin as Finiteneaa. 

This view explains sin as a necessary result of the limitations of man's 
finite being. As an incident of imperfect development, the fruit of igno- 
rance and impotence, sin is not absolutely but only relatively evil — an 
element in human education and a means of progress. This is the view of 
Leibnitz and of Spinoza. Modem writers, as Schurman and Boyce, have 
maintained that moral evil is the necessary background and condition of 
moral good. 

The theory of Leibnitz may be found in his Th6odic6e, part 1, sections 20 and 31 ; that 
of Spinoza in his Bthlcs, part 4, proposition SO. Upon this view sin is the blundering of 
inexperience, the thoughtlessness that takes evil for good, the ignorance that puts its 
fingers into the fire, the stumbling without which one cannot learn to walk. It is a 
fruit which Is sour and bitter simply because it is Immature. It is a means of disci- 
pline and training for something better,— It is holiness in the germ, good In the making 
— ** Erhebung des Mcnschen zur f relen Vemun ft.'* The Fall was a fall up, and not down. 

John Flske, In addition to his sense-theory of sin already mentioned, seems to hold this 
theory also. In his Mystery of Evil, he says : ** Its Impress upon the human soul is the 
indispensable bcu;kground against which shall be set hereafter the eternal Joys of 
heaven ** ; in other words, sin is necessary to holiness, as darkness is the indispensable 
contrast and background to light ; without black, we should never be able to know white. 
Schurman, Belief in Ck)d, 251 sq.— ** The possibility of sin is the correlative of the free 
Initiative God has vacated on man's behalf. . . . The essence of sin Is the enthrone- 
ment of self. . . . Yet, without such self-absorption, there could be no sense of union 
with God. For consciousness is possible only through opposition. To know A, we 
must know it through not-A. Alienation from God is the necessary condition of com- 
munion with God. And this is the meaning of the Scripture that ' whore sin abounded, 
grace shall much more abound.' .... Modem culture protests against the Puritan 
enthronement of goodness above truth. . . . For the decalogue it would substitute the 
wider new commandment of Goethe : ' Live resolutely in the Whole, in the Good, in 
the Beautiful.' The highest religion can be content with nothing short of the syn- 
thesis demanded by Goethe. . . . God is the universal life in which individual activities 
are included as movements of a single organism." 

Royce, World and Individual, 2 : 364-384— ** Evil is a discord necessary to perfect har- 
mony. In itself it is evil, but in relation to the whole it has value by showing us its 
own flnlteness and imperfection. It is a sorrow to God as much as to us ; indeed, all 
our sorrow is his sorrow. The evil serves the good only by being overcome, thwarted, 
overruled. Every e\il deed must somewhere and at some time be atoned for, by some 
other than the agent, if not by the agent himself. . . . All finite life is a struggle with 
evil. Yet from the final point of view the Whole is good. The temporal order con- 
tains at no moment anything that can satisfy. Yet the eternal order is perfect. We 
have all sinned and come short of the glory of God. Yet in just our life, viewed in its 



664 ANTHROPOLOGY, OR THE DOCTRINE OP MAN. 

entirety, the flrlory of God is completely manifest. These hard sayings are the deepest 
expressions of the essence of true religion. They are also the most inevitable outcome 
of philosophy. . . • Were there no longing in time, there would be no peace in eternity. 
The prayer that God*s will may be done on earth as it is in heaven is identical with what 
philosophy regards as simple fact." 

We object to this theory that 

(a) It rests upon a pantheistic basis, as the sense-theory rests upon 
dnalism. The moral is confounded with the physical ; might is identified 
with right. Since sin is a necessary incident of finitcness, and creatiireH 
can never be infinite, it follows that sin must be everlasting, not only in 
the nniverse, but in each individual souL 

Goethe, Carlyle, and EmerBon are representatives of this view in literature. Goetlx 
spoke of the "idleness of wishing to jump off from one's own sliadow." He was a 
disciple of Spinoza, who believed in one substance with contradictory attributes uf 
thought and extension. Goethe took the pantheistic view of God with the personal view 
of man. He ignored the fact of sin. Hutton calls him " the wisest man the world has 
seen who was without humility and faith, and who lacked the wisdom of a child." 
Speaking of Goethe's Faust, Hutton says: "The great drama is radically false in its 
fundamental philosophy. Its primary notion is that even a spirit of pure evil is an 
exceedingly useful being, because he stirs iuto activity those whom he leads into sin, 
and so prevents them from rusting away in pure indolence. There are other and better 
means of stimulating the positive affections of men than by tempting them to sin." On 
Goethe, see Hutton, Essays, 2 : 1-79; Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 1 : 490; A. H. Strong, Great 
Poets and their Theology, 279-331. 

Carlyle was a Scotch Presbyterian nUnui Christianity. At the age of twenty-five, he 
rejected miraculous and historical religion, and thenceforth had no God but natural 
Law. His worship of objective truth became a worship of subjective sincerity, and his 
worship of personal will became a worship of impersonal force. He preached truth, 
service, sacrifice, but all in a mandatory and pessimistic way. He saw in England aud 
Wales "twenty-nine millions— mostly fools." He had no love, no remedy, no hope. In 
our civil war, he was upon the side of the slaveholder. He claimed that his philosophy 
made right to be might, but in practice he made might to t>e right. Confounding all 
moral distinctions, as he did in his later writings, he was fit to wear the title which he in- 
vented for another : " President of the Heaven-and-Hell-Amalgamation Society." Froude 
calls him " a Calvlnist without the theology "—a believer in predestination without grace. 
On Carlyle, see S. Law Wilson, Theology of Modern Literature, 131-178. 

Emerson also is the worshiper of successful force. His pantheism is most manifest in 
his poems "Cupido" and "Brahma," aud in his Essays on "Spirit" and on "The Over- 
soul." Cupido: "The solid, solid universe Is pervious to Love; With bandaged eyes he 
never errs. Around, below, above. His blinding light He flingeth white On God's and 
Satan*s brood. And reconciles by mystic wiles The evil and the good." Brahma: "If the 
red slayer thinks he slays, Or if the slain think he is slain. They know not well the 
subtle waj's I keep, and pass, and turn again. Far or foigot to me is near; Shadow 
and sunlight are the same ; The vanished gods to me appear ; And one to me are shame 
or fame. They reckon ill who leave me out ; When me they fly, I am the wings : I am 
the doubter and the doubt, And I the hymn the Brahmin dngs. The strong gods pine 
for my abode. And pine in vain the sacred Seven ; But thou, meek lover of the good, 
Find me, aud turn thy back on heaven." 

Emerson taught that man's imperfection is not sin, and that the cure for it lies in 
education. "He lets God evaporate into abstract Ideality. Not a Deity in the con- 
crete, nor a superhuman Person, but rather the immanent divinity in things, the essen- 
tially spiritual structure of the universe, is the object of the transcendental cult." His 
view of Jesus is found in his Essays, 2 : 263— "Jesus would absorb the race; but Tom 
Paine, or the coarsest blasphemer, helps humanity by resisting this exuberance of 
power." In his Divinity School Address, he banished the person of Jesus from genuine 
religion. He thought " one could not be a man if he must subordinate his nature to 
Christ's nature." He failed to see that Jesus not only absorbs but transforms, and 
that we grow only by the impact of nobler souls than our own. Emerson's essay 
style is devoid of clear and precise theological statement, and in this vagueness lies its 
harmfulness. Fisher, Nature and Method of Revelation, xii— "Emereon's pantheism 




THE ESSENTIAL PRINCIPLE OF SIN. 565 

is not hardened into a consistent creed, for to the end he clunfr to the belief in persona) 
immortality, and he pronounced the acceptance of this belief ' the test of mental 
sanity.' ** On Emerson, see S. L. Wilson, Theologry of Modem Literature, 97-128. 

We may call this theory the ** ^roen-apple theory " of sin. Sin is a green apple, 
which needs only time and sunshine and growth to bring it to ripeness and beauty and 
usefulness. But we answer that sin is not a green apple, but an apple with a worm at 
its heart. The evil of it can never be cured by growth. The fall can never be anjrthing 
' else than downward. Upon this theory, sin is an inseparable factor in the nature of 
finite things. The hiarhest archangel cannot be without it. Man in moral character is 
** the asymptote of God, "— forever learning, but never able to come to the knowledge 
of the truth. The throne of iniquity is set up forever in the universe. If this theory 
were true, Jesus, in virtue of his partalsing of our finite humanity, must needs be a 
sinner. His perfect development, without sin, shows that sin was not a necessity of 
finite progress. Matthews, in Christianity and Evolution, 137— ** It was not necessary 
for the prodigal to go into the far country and become a swineherd, in order to find 
out the father's love.** E. H. Johnson, Syst. TheoL, 141 — **It is not the privilege of 
the Infinite alone to be good." Domer, System, 1 : 119, speaks of the moral career 
which this theory describes, as "a progreasusin infinitum, where the constant approach 
to the goal has as its reverse side an eternal separation from the goal." In his ** Trans- 
formation," Hawthorne hints, though rather hesitatingly, that without sin the higher 
humanity of man could not be taken up at all, and that sin may be essential to the 
first conscious awakening of moral freedom and to the possibility of progreas; see 
Hutton, Essays, 2 : 381. 

( 6 ) So far as this theory regards moral evQ as a necessary presapposition 
and condition of moral good, it commits the serious error of confounding 
the i>o8siblo with the actuaL What is necessary to goodness is not the 
actuality of evil, but only the possibility of eviL 

Since we cannot know white except in contrast to black, it is claimed that without 
knowing actual evil we could never know actual good. George A. Gordon, New 
Epoch for Faith, 49, fiO, has well shown that in that case the elimination of evil would 
imply the elimination of good. Sin would need to have place in God^s being in order 
that he might be holy, and thus he would be divinity and devil in one person. Jeeus 
too must needs be evil as well as good. Not only would it be true, as intimated above, 
that Christ, since his humanity is finite, must be a sinner, but also that we ourselves, 
who must always be finite, must alwajrs be sinners. We grant that holiness, in either 
God or man, must Involve the abstract possibility of its opposite. But we mfiinf«|it^ 
that, as this possibility in God is only abstract and never realized, so in man it should bo 
only abstract and never realized. Man has power to reject this possible evil. His sin 
is a turning of the merely possible evil, by the decision of his will, into actual evlL 
Robert Browning is not free from the error above mentioned ; see S. Law Wilson, The- 
ology of Modem Literature, 207-210 ; A. H. Strong, Great Poets and their Theology, 
433-444. 

This theory of sin dates back to HegeL To him there is no real sin and cannot be. 
Imperfection there is and must always be, because the relative can never become the 
absolute. Redemption is only an evolutionary process, indefinitely prolonged, and evil 
must remain an eternal condition. All finite thought is an element in the infinite 
thought, and all finite will an element in the infinite will. As good cannot exist with- 
out evil as its antithesis, infinite righteousness should have for its counterpart an 
Infinite wickedness. Hcgers guiding principle was that *' What is rational is real, and 
what is real is rational." Scth, Hegolianism and Personality, remarks that this princi- 
ple ignores ** the riddle of the painful earth." The disciples of Hegel thought that 
nothing remained for history to accomplish, now that the World-spirit had oome to 
know himself in Hegel's philosophy. 

Biedermann's Dogmatik is based upon the Hegelian philosophy. At page 649 we read : 
'* Evil is the finiteness of the world-being which clings to all individual existences by 
virtue of their belonging to the immanent world-order. Evil is therefore a necessary 
element in the divinely willed being of the world." Bradley follows Hegel in making 
sin to be no reality, but only a relative apix)arance. There is no freewill, and no antag- 
onism between the will of God and the will of man. Darkness is an evil, a destroying 
agents But it is not a positive force, as light is. It cannot be attacked and overcome 
as an entity. Bring light, and darknew disappears. So evil is not a positive force, as 



€66 AITTHROPOLOOYy OR THE DOOTBIKE OF MAN. 

flrood is. Bring good, and evil disappears. Herbert Spencer's Evolutionary Ethics fits 
in with such a system, for he says : ^* A perfect man in an imperfect race is impossi- 
ble." On Hegel's view of sin, a view which denies holiness even to Christ, see J. Miiller, 
I>oct. Sin, 1 : aO(M07 ; Domer, Hist. Doct. Person of Christ, B. 8 : 131-182 ; Steams, Evi- 
dence of Christ. Experience, 92-96 ; John Caird, Fond. Ideas, 2 : 1-25 ; Forrest, Author- 
ity of Christ, 18-10. 

( ) It is inoonEdstent with known facts, — as for example, the follow- 
ing : Not all sins are negative sins of ignorance and infirmity ; there are acts 
of positive malignity, conscions transgressions, wilful and presmnptaons 
choices of eviL Increased knowledge of the natore of sin does not of itself 
give strength to overcome it ; bnt, on the contrary, repeated acts of con- 
scions transgression harden the heart in eviL Men of greatest mental 
powers are not of necessity the greatest saints, nor are the greatest sinners 
men of least strength of will and understanding. 

Not the weak but the strong are the greatest sinners. We do not pity Nero and GsBsar 
Borgia for their weakness ; we abhor them for their crimes. Judas was an able man, a 
practical administrator ; and Satan is a being of groat natural endowments. Sin is not 
simply a weakness,— it is also a power. A pantheistic philosophy should worship Satan 
most of all ; for he is the truest type of godless intellect and selfish strength. 

John 12 : 6— Judas, " haviiig the btg, mads tinj with what vas pat thcniiL" Judas was sot by Christ 
to do the work he was host fitted for, and that was best fitted to Interest and save him. 
Some men may be put into the ministry, because that is the only work that will prevent 
their destruction. Pastors should find for their members work suited to the aptitudes 
of each. Judas was tempted, or tried, as all men are, according to his native propen- 
sity. While his motive in objecting to Mary*s generosity was really avarice, his pretext 
was charity, or rofirard for the poor. Each one of the apostles had his own peculiar gift, 
and was chosen because of it. The sin of Judas was not a sin of weakness, or ignorance, 
or infirmity. It was a sin of disappointed ambition, of malice, of hatred for Christ's 
self-sacrificing purity. 

K H. Johnson : *' Sins are not men's limitations, but the active expressions of a per- 
verse nature.** M. F. H. Round, Sec. of Nat. Prison Association, on examining the 
record of a thousand criminals, found that one quarter of them had an exceptionally 
fine basis of physical life and strength, while the other three quarters fell only a little 
below the average of ordinary humanity ; see The Forum, Sept. 1893. The theory that 
sin is only holiness in the making reminds us of the view that the most objectionable 
refuse can by ingenious processes be converted into butter or at least into oleomar- 
garine. It is not true that *' tout comprendre est tout pardonner.** Such doctrine oblit- 
erates all moral distinctions. Gilbert, Bab Ballads,*' My Dream*': ''I dreamt that 
somehow I had come To dwell in Topsy-Turvydom, Where vice is virtue, virtue vice ; 
Where nice is nasty, nasty nice ; Where right is wrong, and wrong is right ; Where 
white is black and black is white." 

(c?) Like the sense-theory of sin, it contradicts both conscience and 
Scripture by denying human responsibility and by transferring the blame 
of sin from the creature to the Creator. This is to explain sin, again, by 
denying its existence. 

CEdipus said that his evil deeds had been suffered, not done. Agamemnon, in the 
niad, says the blame belongs, not to himself, but to Jupiter and to fate. So sin blames 
everything and everybody but self. Qvl 3 : 12 — " Tlia voman vliom thoa gayest to be vith me, ahe gaTt 
me of tlM tree^ and I did eat" But self -vindicating is Ood-accusing. Hade imperfect at the 
start, man cannot help his sin. By the very tact of his creation he is cut loose from Ood. 
That cannot be sin which is a necessary outgrowth of human nature, which is not our 
act but our fate. To all this, the one answer is found in Conscience. Conscience testi- 
fies that sin is not ** das Oewordene,** but *' das Oemachte,** and that it was his own act 
when man by transgression fell. The Scriptures refer man's sin, not to the limitations 
of his being, but to the free will of man himself. On the theory here combated, see 
liilllcr, Doct. Sin, 1 : 271-205 ; Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 8 : 123-131 ; N. R. Wood, The Wit- 
ness of Sin, 20-43. 



THE ESSENTIAL PBIKOIPLB OF SIK. 567 

3. Sin as SclJUhnesB. 

We hold tlie essential principle of sin to be selfishness. By selfishness 
we mean not simply the exaggerated self -love which oonstitates the antith- 
esis of benevolencey but that choice of self as the supreme end which 
constitutes the antithesis of supreme love to God. That selfishness is the 
essence of sin may be shown as follows : 

A. Love to €k>d is the essence of all virtue. The opposite to this^ the 
choice of self as the supreme end, must therefore be the essence of sin. 

We are to remember, however, that the love to God in which virtue con- 
sists is love for that which is most characteristic and fundamental in Gk>d, 
namely, his holiness. It is not to be confounded with supreme regard for 
God's interests or for the good of being in general Not mere benevolence, 
but love for Gk>d as holy, is the principle and source of holiness in man. 
Since the love of Gk)d required by the law is of this sort, it not only does 
not imply that love, in the sense of benevolence, is the essence of holiness 
in God, — it implies rather that holiness, or self-loving and self -affirming 
purity, is fundamental in the divine nature. From this self-loving and 
self-affirming purity, love properly so-caUed, or the self-communicating 
attribute, is to be carefully distinguished ( see voL 1, pages 271-275 )• 

Bossuot, defloriblngr heathendoiiL, says : ^* Every thing* was Ood but Ood taimaelf ." Sin 
goes further than this, and says : ** I am myself all things,**— not simply as Louis XVI : 
** I am the state,** but : ** I am the world, the anlyerae, God.** Heinrich Heine : ^ I am 
no ohild. I do not want a heavenly Father any more.** A French critic of Flchte*s 
philosophy said that it was a flight toward the infinite which began with the ego, and 
never got beyond it. Kidd, Social Evolution, 76— ^ In Oalderon's tragic story, the 
unknown figure, which throughout life is evenrwhere in conflict with the individual 
whom it haunts, lifts the mask at last to disclose to the opponent his own features.*' 
Calrd, Evolution of Religion, 1 : 78— *' Every self, once awalDsned, is naturally a despot, 
and * bears, like the Turk, no brother near the throne.' ** Every one has, as Hobbet 
said, " an inflnite desire for gain or glory,'* and can be satisfled with nothing but a 
whole universe for himself. Selfishness — ** homo homini lupus.*' James Martineau : 
'* We ask Oomte to lift the veil from the holy of holies and show us the all-perfect 
objcetof worship,— he produces a looking-glass and shows us ourselves.** Comte*B 
religion is a ** synthetic idealization of our existence ** — a worship, not of Ood, but of 
humanity; and '* the festival of humanity** among Podtivists — Walt Whitman's ** I 
celebrate mjrself .*' On Comte, see Martineau, Tsrpes, 1 : 480. The most thorough dis- 
cussion of the essential principle of sin is that of Julius Mllller, Doct. Sin, 1 : 147-18S. 
He defines sin as ** a turning away from the love of Ood to self-seeking." 

N. W. Taylor holds that self-love is the primary cause of all moral action ; that self- 
ishness is a difTerent thing, and consists not in making our own happiness our ultimate 
end, which we must do if we are moral beings, but in love of the world, and in prefer- 
ring the world to Ood as our portion or chief good (see N. W. Taylor, Moral Oovt., 1 : 
24-26; 2:20-24, and Rev. Theol., 184-162; Tyler, Letters on the New Haven Theology, 
72 ). We claim, on the contrary, that to make our own happiness our ultimate aim is 
itself sin, and the essence of sin. AsGk>d makes his holiness the central thing, so we are 
to live for that, loving self only in Gk)d and for Ood's sake. This love for Ood as holy 
is the essence of virtue. The opposite to this, or supreme love for self, is sin. As 
Richard Lovelace writes : ** I could not love thee, dear, so much. Loved I not honor 
more,** so Christian friends can say : ** Our loves in higher love endure." The sinner 
raises some lower object of instinct or desire to supremacy, regardless of Ood and his 
law, and this he does for no other reason than to gratify self. On the distinction 
between mere benevolence and the love required by Ood's law, see Hovey, Ood With 
Us, 187-200; Hopkins, Works, 1 :285; F. W. Robertson, Sermon I. Emerson: "Your 
goodness must have some edge to it, else it is none." See Newman Smyth, Christian 
Ethics, 827-870, on duties toward self as a moral end. 

Love to Ood is the essence of all virtue. We are to love Ood with all the heart. But 
what Ood ? Surely, not the false Ood, the Ood who is indifterent to moral distinctions* 



568 AKTHliOPOLOGY, OH THE DOCTRINE OF MAK. 

and who treats the wicked as he treats the righteous. The love which the law requires 
Is love for the true God, the God of holiness. Such love aims at the reproduction of 
God's holiness in ourselves and in others. We are to love ourselves only for God's sake 
and for the sake of roalizingr the divine idea in us. We are to love others only for 
God's sake and for the sake of realizing the divine idea in them. In our moral progress 
we, first, love self for our own sake ; secondly, God for our own sake ; thirdly, God for 
his own sake ; fourthly, ourselves for God's sake. The first is our state by nature ; the 
second requires prevenient grace ; the third, regenerating grace ; and the fourth, sanc- 
tifying grace. Only the last is reasonable self-love. Balfour, Foundations of Belief, 27 — 
** Reasonable self-love is a virtue wholly incompatible with what is commonly called 
selfishness. Society suffers, not from having too much of it, but from having too 
little.** Altruism is not the whole of duty. Self-realization is equally important. But 
to care only for self, like Goethe, is to miss the true self-realization, which love to God 
ensures. 

Love desires only the best for its object, and the best is Ood. The golden rule bids us 
give, not what others desire, but what they need. Rom. 15 : 2 — "Let eaoh one of uspleue his neigh- 
bor for that whiflk iigood, untoedifjing." Deutsche Liebe : "■ Nicht Liebe die fragt : Willst du 
meinscin? Sondem Liebe die sagt: Ich muss dein sein." Sin consists in taking for 
one's self alone and apart from God that in one's self and in others to which one has a 
right only in God and for God's sake. Mrs. Humphrey Ward, David Grieve, 403 — 
** How dare a man pluck from the Lord's hand, for his wild and reckless use, a soul and 
body for which he died ? How dare he, the Lord's bondsman, steal his joy, carrying it 
off by himself into the wildemesB, like an animal his prey, instead of asking it at the 
hands and under the blessing of the Master? How dare he, a member of the Lord's 
body, forget the whole, in his greed for the one — eternity in his thirst for the pres- 
ent ? '» Wordsworth, Prelude. 646— " Delight how pitiable. Unless this love by a still 
hijrher love Be hallowed, love that breathes not without awe ; Love that adores, but 

on the knees of prayer. By heaven inspired This spiritual love acts not nor can 

exist Without imagination, which in truth Is but another name for absolute power. 
And clearest insight, amplitude of mind. And reason in her most exalted mood." 

Aristotle sajrs that the wicked have no right to love themselves, but that the good 
may. So, from a Christian point of view, we may say : No unregenerate man can 
properly respect himself. Self-respect belongs only to the man who lives in God and 
who has God's image restored to him thereby. True self-love is not love for the ?iap- 
piiuma of the self, but for the toorth of the self in God's sight, and this self-love is the 
condition of all genuine and worthy love for others. But true self-love is in turn 
conditioned by love to God as holy, and it seeks primarily, not the happiness, but the 
holiness, of others. Asquith, Christian Conception of Holiness, 98, 145, 154, 207 — *' Benev- 
olence or love is not the same with altruism. Altruism is instinctive, and has not its 
origin in the moral reason. It has utility, and it may even furnish material for reflec- 
tion on the part of the moral reason. But so far as it is not deliberate, not indulged for 
the sake of the end, but only for the gratification of the instinct of the moment, it is 
not moral. • . . Holiness is dedication to God, the Good, not as an external Ruler, but 
as an internal controller and transformer of character. . . . God is a being whose every 
thought is love, of whose thoughts not one is for himself, save so far as himself is not 
himself, that is, so far as there is a distinction of persons in the Godhead. Creation is 
one great unselfish thought — the bringing into being of creatures who can know the 
happiness that God knows. ... To the spiritual man holiness and love are one. Sal- 
vation is deliverance from selfishness.'* Kaftan, Dogmatik, 319, 820, regards the essence 
of sin as consisting, not in selfishness, but in turning away from God and so from the 
love which would cause man to grow in knowledge and likeness to God. But this 
seems to be nothing else than choosing self instead of God as our object and end. 

B. All the different forms of sin can be shown to have their root in 
selfishness, while selfishness itself, considered as the choice of self as a 
supreme end, cannot be resolved into any simpler elements. 

( a ) Selfishness may reveal itself in the elevation to supreme dominion 
of any one of man's natural appetites, desires, or affections. Sensuality is 
selfishness in the form of inordinate appetite. Selfish desire takes the forms 
respectively of avarice, ambition, vanity, pride, according as it is set upon 
property, power, esteem, independence. Selfish affection is falsehood or 



THE ESSENTIAL FBINOIPLE OF SIN. 569 

malice, according as it hopes to make others its volnntary servants, or 
regards them as standing in its way ; it is unbelief or enmity to Ood, accord- 
ing as it simply turns away from the truth and love of God, or oonoeives 
of Gk)d's holiness as positively resisting and punishing it. 

Augrufitine and Aquinas held the essence of sin to be pride ; Luther and Calvin 
regarded its essence to bo unbelief. KreibiK ( VerstShnunKslehre ) resrards it as ^ world- 
love " ; still others consider it as enmity to God. In opposimr the view that sensuality 
is the esBonoe of sin, Julius MUller says : ^* Wherever we find sensuality, there we find 
selfishness, but we do not find that, where there is selfishness, there is alwasrs sensuality. 
Selfishness may embody itself in fleshly lust or inordinate desire for the creature, but 
this last cannot bring forth spiritual sins which have no element of sensuality in them.*' 

Covetousness or avarice makes, not sensual gratification itself, but the things that 
may minister thereto, the object of pursuit, and in this last chase often loses sight of 
its original aim. Ambition is selfish love of power ; vanity is selfish love of esteem. 
Pride is but the self-complacency, self-sufficiency, and self-isolation of a selfish spirit 
that desires nothing so much as unrestrained independence. Falsehood originates in 
selfishness, first as self-deception, and then, since man by sin isolates himself and yet in 
a thousand ways needs the fellowship of Us brethren, as deception of others, Malioe, 
the perversion of natural resentment ( together with hatred and revenge), is the r^uv 
tion of selfishness against those who stand, or are imagined to 'stand, in its way. 
Unbelief and enmity to God are efTeots of sin, rather than iU essence ; selfishness leads 
us first to doubt, and then to hate, the Lawgiver and Judge. Tacitus: **Humani 
generis proprium est odiase quern laiseris.'* In sin, self-affirmation and self-surrender 
are not coordinate elements, as Domer holds, but the former conditions the latter. 

As love to God is love to God*s holiness, so love to man is love for holiness in man and 
desire to impart it. In other words, true love for man is the longing to make man like 
God. Over against this normal desire which should fill the heart and inspire the life, 
there stands a hierarchy of lower desires which may be utilized and sanctified by the 
higher love, but which may assert their independence and may thus be the occasions 
of sin. Physical gratification, money, esteem, power, knowledge, family, virtue, are 
proper objects of regard, so long as these are sought for God's sake and within the lim- 
itations of his will. Sin consists in turning our backs on God and in seeking any one of 
these objects for its own sake ; or, which is the same thing, for our own sake. Appetite 
gratified without regard to God's law is lust ; the love of money becomes avarice ; the 
desire for esteem becomes vanity ; the longing for power becomes ambition ; the love 
for knowledge becomes a selfish thirst for intellectual satisfaction ; parental affection 
degenerates intb indulgence and nepotism; the seeking of virtue becomes self-right- 
eousness and self-sufficiency. Kaftan, Dogmatik, 823^ ** Jesus grrants that even the 
heathen and sinners love those who love them. But family love becomes family pride ; 
patriotism comes to stand for country right or wrong ; happiness in one's calling leads 
to class distinctions." 

Dante, in his Divine Comedy, divides the Inferno into three great sections : those in 
which are punished, respectively, incontinenoe, bestiality, and malice. Incontinence — 
sin of the heart, the emotions, the affections. Lower down is found bestiality — sin of 
the head, the thoughts, the mind, as infidelity and heresy. Lowest of all is malice — sin 
of the will, deliberate rebeUion, fraud and treachery. So we arc taught that the heart 
carries the intellect with it, and that the sin of unbelief gradually deepens into the 
Intensity of malioe. See A. H. Strong, Great Poets and their Theology, 133— *' Dante 
teaches us that sin is the self-perversion of the will. If there is any thought fundamental 
to his system, it is the thought of freedom. Man is not a waif swept irresistibly down- 
ward on the current ; he is a being endowed with power to resist, and therefore guilty 
if he jrields. Sin is not misf ortime, or disease, or natural necessity ; it is wilfulness, and 
crime, and self-destruction. The Divine Comedy is, beyond all other poems, the poem 
of conscience ; and this oould not be, if it did not recognize roan as a free agent, the 
responsible cause of his own evil acts and his own evil state." See also Harris, in Jour. 
Spec. Philos., 21 : 360-451 ; Dinsmore, Atonement in Literature and Life, 69-86. 

In Greek tragedy, says Prof. Wm. Arnold Stevens, the one sin which the gods hated 
and would not pardon was vppn -~ obstinate self-assertion of mind or will, absence of 
reverence and humility— of which we have an illustration in Ajaz. George 
MacDonald : ** A man may be possessed of himself, as of a devil." Shakespeare depicts 
this insolence of infatuation in Shylook, Macbeth, and Biohard m. Troilus and Cros- 



570 ANTHROPOLOGY, "oR THE DOCTRIKE OF MAK. 

sida, 4:4 — ^* Something may be done that we will not ; And sometimes we are devilB to 
ourselves. When wo will tempt the frailty of our powers. Presuming on their change- 
ful potency.** Tet Robert Q. Ingersoll said that Shakespeare holds crime to be the 
mistake of ignorance I N. P. WilUs, Parrhasius : ** How like a mounting devil in the 
heart Rules unrestrained ambition I *' 

( & ) Even in the nobler forms of nnregenerate life, the principle of self- 
ishness is to be regarded as manifesting itself in the preference of lower 
ends to that of God's proposing. Others are loved with idolatrous affection 
because these others are regarded as a part of self. That the sel£sh ele- 
ment is present even here, is evident npon considering that such affection 
does not seek the highest interest of its object, that it often ceases when 
unretumed, and that it sacrifices to its own gratification the claims of God 
and his law. 

Even in the mother*s idolatry of her child, the explorer's devotion to science, the 
sailor's risk of his life to save another's, the gratifloation sought may be that of a lower 
instinct or desire, and any substitution of a lower for the highest object is non-con- 
formity to law, and therefore sin. H. B. Smith, Sjrstem Theology, 277— *' Some lower 
affection is supreme." And the underlying motive which leads to this substitution is 
self -gratification. There is no such thing as disinterested sin, for " •rarj oim UiAt lovatii is 
b«prttan of God " ( i John 4:7). Thomas Hughes, The Manliness of Christ : Much of the heroism 
of battle is simply ** resolution in the actors to liave their way, contempt for ease, 
animal courage which we share with the bulldog and the weasel, intense assertion of 
indi\idual will and force, avowal of the rough-handed man that he has that in him 
which enables him to defy pain and danger and death.** 

Mozley on Blanco White, in Essays, 2 : 143 : Truth may be sought in order to absorb 
truth in self, not for the sake of absorbing self in truth. So Blanco White, in spite of 
the pain of separating from old views and friends, lived for the selfish pleasure of 
new discovery, till all his early faith vanished, and even immortality seemed a dream. 
He falsely thought that the pain he suffered in giving up old beliefs was evidence of 
self-sacrifice with which God must be pleased, whereas it was the inevitable pain wliich 
attends the victory of selfishness. Robert Browning, Paracelsus, 81 — **I still must 
hoard, and heap, and class all truths With one ulterior purpose : I must know I Would 
Qod translate me to his throne, believe That I should only listen to his words To further 
my own ends.** F. W. Uobertson on Genesis, 67 — *' He who-sacrifloes his sense of right, 
his conscience, for another, sacrifices the God within him ; he is not sacrificing self. 
.... He who prefers his dearest friend or his beloved child to the call of duty, will soon 
show that he prefers himself to his dearest friend, and would not sacrifice himself for 
his child.** lb., 91 — " In those who love little, love [for finite beings] is a primary 

affection, — a secondary, in those who love much The only true affection is that 

which is subordinate to a higher.*' True love is love for the soul and its highest, its 
eternal, interests ; love that seeks to make it holy ; love for the sake of God and for the 
accomplishment of God's idea in his creation. 

Although we cannot, with Augustine, call the virtues of the heathen "splendid 
vices"— for they were relatively good and useful, — they still, except in possible 
instances where God's Spirit wrought upon the heart, were illustrations of a morality 
divorced from love to God, were lacking in the most essential element demanded by the 
law, were therefore infected with sin. Since the law Judges all action by the heart from 
which it springs, no action of the nnregenerate can be other than sin. The ebony-tree 
is white in its outer circles of woody fibre ; at heart it is black as ink. There is no 
unselfishness in the nnregenerate heart, apart from the divine enlightenment and 
energizing. Self-sacrifice for the sake of self is selfishness after alL Professional burg- 
lars and bank-robbers are often carefully abstemious in their personal habits, and they 
deny themselves the use of liquor and tobacco while m the active practice of their 
trade. Horron, The Larger Christ, 47 — *' It is as truly immoral to seek truth out of 
mere love of knowing it, as it is to seek money out of love to gain. Truth sought for 
truth's sake is an intellectual vice ; it is spiritual covctousness. It is an idolatry, set- 
ting up the worship of abstractions and generalities in place of the living God.*' 

( c ) It must be remembered, however, that side by side with the selfish 
will, and striving against it, is the power of Ohrist, the immanent Qod, 



THE ESSENTIAL PRINCIPLE OF SIN. 671 

imx)artiiig aspirations and impulses foreign to unregenerate humanity, and 
preparing the way for the soul's surrender to truth and righteousness. 

Rom. 8: 7 —" the mind of th« flash is Mimity againsl God"; Asts 17:27, 28 — "hiS isaotftr fromaMhoiMofu: 
finr in him W6 lira, «ad moTi, and haTo oar boinf "; Bom. 2:4— "tha goodnass of Godlaadaththattoropottaaea*'; 
John 1 : 9 — " tha light which lightath arsry man.*' Many generous traits and acta of self-saorifioe 
in the unregrenerate must be ascribed to the provenient graoe of God and to the 
enlightening' influence of the Spirit of Christ. A mother, during the Bussian famine, 
gave to her children all the little supply of food that oamo to her in the distribution, 
and died that they might live. In her decision to saorifioe herself for her ofDapring she 
may have found her probation and may have surrendered herself to God. The impulse 
to make the sacrifice may have been due to the Holy Spirit, and her jrlelding may have 
been essentially an act of saving faith. In Hark 10 : 21, 22 — " And Jasu loddng npon him lorad him 
... ha vent tmj somvftil " — our Lord apparently loved the young man, not only for his 
gifts, his efforts, and his possibilities, but also for the manifest working in him of the 
divine Spirit, even while in his natural character he was without Gk>d and without love, 
self-ignorant, self-righteous, and self-seeking. 

Paul, in like manner, before his conversion, loved and desired righteousness, provided 
only that this righteousness might be the product and achievement of his own will and 
might reflect honor on himself ; in short, provided only that self might still be upper- 
most. To be dependent for righteousness upon another was abhorrent to him. And 
yet this very impulse toward righteousness may have been due to the divine Spirit 
within him. On PauPs experience before conversion, see B. D. Burton, Bib. World, 
Jan. 1893. Peter objected to the washing of his feet by Jesus ( John 13 : 8 ), not because it 
humbled the Master too much in the eyes of the disciple, but because it humbled the 
disciple too much in his own eyes. Pfleiderer, Philos. Beligion, 1 : 218— ** Sin is the 
violation of the God-willed moral order of the world by the self-will of the individual.'* 
Tophel on the Holy Spirit, 17 — ** Tou would deeply wound him [ the average sinner ] 
if you told him that his heart, full of sin, is an object of horror to the holiness of Gkxl.*' 
The impulse to repentance, as well as the impulse to righteousness, is the product, not 
of man's own nature, but of the Christ within him who is moving him to seek 
salvation. 

Eliziibeth Barrett wrote to Bobert Browning after she had accepted his proposal of 
marriage : *' Henceforth I am yours for evenrthing but to do you harm.'* George 
Harris, Moral Evolution, 138 —** Love seeks the true good of the person loved. It will 
not minister in an unworthy way to afford a temporary pleasure. It will not approve 
or tolerate that which is wrong. It will not encourage the ooarse, base passions of the 
one loved. It condemns impmity, falsehood, selfishness. A parent does not really 
love his child if he tolerates the self-indulgence, and does not correct or punish the 
faults, of the child." Hutton : *' Tou might as well say that it is a fit subject for art 
to paint the morbid ezstasy of cannibals over their horrid feasts, as to paint lust with- 
out love. If you are to delineate man at all, you must delineate him with his human 
nature, and therefore you can never omit from any worthy picture that conscience 
which is its crown.'* 

Tennyson, in In Memoriam, speaks of ** Fantastic beauty such as lurks In some wild 
poet when he works Without a conscience or an aim.** Such work may be due to mere 
human nature. But the lofty work of true creative genius, and the still loftier acts of 
men still unregenerate but conscientious and self-sacrificing, must be explained by the 
working in them of the immanent Christ, the life and light of men. James Martineau, 
Study, 1:20— '* Conscience may act as human, before it is discovered to be divine.*' 
See J. D. Stoops, in Jour. Philos., Psych., and Sd. Meth., 2 : 512— ** If there is a di\ine 
life over and above the separate streams of individual lives, the welling up of this larger 
life in the experience of the individual is precisely the point of contact between the 
indi\idual person and God.'* Caird, Fund. Ideas of Christianity, 2: 122 — ** It is this 
divine element in man, this relationship to God, which gives to sin its darkest and 
direst complexion. For such a life is the turning of a light brighter than the sun into 
darkness, the squandering or bartering away of a boundless wealth, the suicidal abase- 
ment, to the things that perish, of a nature destined by its very constitution and 
structure for participation in the very being and blessedness of God." 

On the various forms of sin as manifestations of selfishness, see Julius MtUler, Doct. 
Sin. 1 : U7-182; Jonathan Edwards, Works, 2 : 268, 209; Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 3 : 6, 6; 
Baird, Elohim Kevealed, 243-28S ; Stewart, Active and Moral Powers, 11-91 ; Hopkins, 
Moral Science, 86-166. On the Boman Catholic ^' Seven Deadly SIdb'* (Pride. Envy, 



672 ANTHROPOLOGY, OB THE DOCTRINE OF MAN. 

An^r, Sloth, Avarice, Gluttony, Lust ), see Wetzer und Welte, Klrchenlexikon, and 
Orby Shipley, Theory about Sin, preface, xvi-xviii. 

0. This view accords best with Scripture. 

( a ) The law requires love to GK)d as its all-embracing requirement. ( & ) 
The holiness of Christ consisted in this, that he sought not his own will or 
glory, but made Gk>d his supreme end. ( c ) The Christian is one who has 
ceased to live for self, (d) The tempter's promise is a promise of selfish 
independence, (e) The prodigal separates himself from his father, and 
seeks his own interest and pleasure. (/) The "man of sin" illustrates 
the nature of sin, in ''opposing and exalting himself against all that is 
called God." 

(a) lUt22:37-39 — the command of love to God and man; Rom.l3:8-10 — "loTBUiarsforeistha 
fblfilnMQt of th« law " ; Gd. 5 : 14 — "the whol* law is ftilfllled in one word, 0T«n in this: Tlum shall Ioto thj neigh- 
boruthTself"; Jamfl8 2:8— "tbarojallaw." (b) John 5:30— "mjjadg:m«nt is righteous; beeanselseeknotmine 
own will, but the will of him that sent me"; 7:18 — "Ee that speaketh from himself seeketh his own gloiy : bat he 
thatseeketh the gbry of him that sent him, the same if true, andno unrighteoasnaGsisinhim"; &om. 15:3 -"Qurist 
also pleased not himself.'* ( c ) Rom. 14 : 7— "none of us liTtth to himself^ and none dieth to himself" ; 2 Cor. 5 : 15 — 
** he died for all, that they that lire shoold no longer Uto unto themselTes, but unto him who for their sakes died and 
rose again " ; GaL 2 : 20— "I hare been eradfled with Christ; and it is no longer I that Uto, but Christ liTOth in me." 
Contrast 2 Tim. 3: 2-" loTers of self." (d) Gen. 3:5— "je shall be as God, knowing goodanderil" (e)Lake 
15:12, 13 — "giTO me the portion of thj subttanoe .... gathered all together and took his joumej into a far eoontty." 
(/ ) 2 These. 2 : 3» 4 — " the man of sin .... the son of perdition, he that opposeth and exalteth himself against all that 
is called God or that is worshipped ; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God." 

Oontrast " the man of sin" who "exalteth himself" (2Thes8. 2: 3, 4) with the Son of Ood who "em^ 
tied himself" (PhiL 2: 7). On "the man of sin", see Wm. Arnold Stevens, in Bap. Quar. Rev., 
July, 1889 : 328-360. Ritchie, Darwin, and Hegel, 24 — ** We are conscious of sin, because 
we know that our true self is God, from whom we are severed. No ethics Is possible 
unless we recofrnize an ideal for all human effort in the presence of the eternal Self which 
any account of conduct presupposes." John Caird, Fund. Ideas of Christianity, 2 : 53-73 
— ** Here, as in all organic life, the individual member or organ has no Independent or 
exclusive life, and the attempt to attain to it is fatal to itself." Milton describes man 
as ** affecting Godhead, and so losing all." Of the sinner, we may say with Shakespeare, 
Coriolanus, 5 : 4 — ** He wants nothing of a god but eternity and a heaven to throne in. 
.... There is no more mercy in him than there is milk in a male tiger." No one of us, 
then, can sign too early ** the declaration of dependence." Both Old School and New 
School theologians agree that sin is selfishness ; see Bellamy, Hopkins, Emmons, the 
younger Edwards, Finney, Taylor. See also A. H. Strong, Christ in Creation, 287-208. 

Sin, therefore, is not merely a negative thing, or an absence of love to 
God. It is a fundamental and positive choice or preference of self instead 
of Gk>d, as the object of affection and the supreme end of being. Instead 
of making God the centre of his life, surrendering himself unconditionallj 
to God and possessing himself only in subordination to God's will, the sin- 
ner makes self the centre of his life, sets himself directly against God, and 
constitutes his own interest the supreme motive and his own will the 
supreme rule. 

We may follow Dr. E. G. Bobinson in saying that, while sin as a state 
is unlikeness to God, as a principle is opposition to God, and as an act is 
transgression of God's law, the essence of it always and everywhere is 
selfishness. It is therefore not something external, or the result of compul- 
sion from without ; it is a depravity of the affections and a perversion of the 
will, which constitutes man's inmost character. 

See Harris, in Bib. Sac., 18 : 148— *^ Sin is essentially egoism or selfism, putting self 
in God's place. It has four principal characteristics or manifestations: (1) self-suffi- 
ciency, instead of taXth ; ( 2 ) self-will, instead of submission ; (8 ) 8elf-«eeking, Instead of 



THE UNIVERSALITY OF SIN. 573 

benevoleDoe ; ( 4 ) self-rifirbteousness, instead of humility and reverence.** All sin is 
cither explicit or implicit ''enmity against God" (RontS:?). All true confessions are like 
David's ( Ps. 51: 4) — ''Against thee^ thaeonlj, hare I sinnei And dime tb&t which is 6Til in thy nghC* Of all 
sinners it might be said that they "Fight neither with oiall nor grei;^ aare onlj vith the king of Israel " 
(11.22:31). 

Not every sinner is conscious of this enmity. Sin is a principle in course of develop- 
ment. It is not yeffUl-grovn" (James 1: 15 — "the sin, vhen it is M-grown, biingeth forth death"). 
Even now, as James Martineau has said : ** If it could be known that God was dead, the 
news would cause but little excitement in the streets of London and Paris." But this 
indifference easily grrows, in the presence of threatening and penalty, into violent hatred 
to God and positive defiance of his law. If the sin which is now hidden in the 8lnner*s 
heart were but permitted to develop itself according to its own nature, it would hurl 
the Almighty from his throne, and would set up its own kingdom upon the ruins of 
the moral universe. Sin is world-destroying, as well as God-destroying, for it is incon- 
sistent with the conditions which make being as a whole possible; see Boyoe, World 
and Individual, 2 : 366 ; Dwight, Works, sermon 80. 



SECTION III. — UNIVERSALITY OF SIN. 

We have shown that sin is a state, a state of the will, a selfish state of 
the wilL We now proceed to show that this selfish state of the will is 
nniversaL We divide our proof into two parts. In the first, we regard 
sin in its aspect as conscious violation of law ; in the second, in its acfpect 
as a bias of the nature to evil, prior to or underlying consoiousness. 

L EyBBT human BEING WHO HAS ABKIVED AT MOBAIi CONSOIOUSNESS 
HAS GOlfMITTBD AOTS, OB OHEBISHSD DISPOSITIONBy OONTBABY TO THB 
DIVINE liAW. 

1. Proof fr(ym Scripture. 

The uuiversality of transgression is : 

(a) Set forth in direct statements of Scripture. 

i 1.8:46 — "there iino man that sinneth not'*; P&i43:2— "enternot inte jndgnieiit vith thy senrant ; For in 
thj sight no nun liring is righteous " ; Prov. 20:9 — ** Who eanny, I hare made my heart elean, I am pore from mj 
sin?" loel. 7:20— "Sorely there is not a righteoos man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not"; Lake 11:13 — 
"If je, then, being eril" ; Rom. 3 : 10, 12— "There is none ri^teou^ no, not one ... . There ii none that doeth good, 
no^ not so mochas one"; 19^20 — "that every month may be stopped, and all the world may be brooghtonder the jodg- 
ment of God : becaose by the works of the kw shall no flesh be jnstified in his sight ; for throogh the law eometh the 
knowledge of sin"; 23— "for all have sinned, and &11 short of the glory of God"; 6aL8:22 — "theseriptoreshntop 
all things onder sin" ; James3 :2 — "7or in many tilings we all stomble" ; 1 John 1 : 8 — "If we say thi^ we have no 
sin, we deoeiTe oorselTes, and the troth is not in ns." Ck>mpare Hat 6 : 12 — "ftigiTo ns oar debts "— uriven as a 
prayer for all men ; 14 —"if ye forgire men their trespaaes "—the condition of our own f orgiveneas. 

( & ) Implied in declarations of the universal need of atonement, regen- 
eration, and repentance. 

Universal need of atonement : Mark 16 : 16 — " le that beliereth and ii bi^tiisd shall be ssTsd '* ( Mark 
16 : 9-20, though probably not written by Mark, is nevertheless of canonical authority) ; 
John 3 : 16 — " God so loved the world, that he gave Us only begotten Son, that iriuNoerer beliereth on him shonld not 
peridi" ; 6:50 — "This is the bread iritieh eometh down ootof hearen, thata man may eat thereof and not die"; 
12:47— "I came not to jodge the world, bat to MTO the world"; iets4:12 — "in none other is there aalTatioa: for 
neither ii there any other name nnder heaven, that is given among nun, wherein we most be saved." Universal 
need of regeneration : John 3 : 3, 5— "Except one be bom anew, he oannot see the Ungdom of God. .... 
Ixoept one Im bom of water and the Spirit, he oannot enter into the kingdom of God." Universal need of repen- 
tance : lets 17 : 30— "commandeth men that they shoald all everywhere repenL" Yet Mrs. Mary Baker 
G. Eddy, in her " Unity of Good," speaks of *^the illusion which calls sin real and man 
a sinner needing a Savior.'* 



574 AKTHBOPOLOQTy OB THE DOCTBIKB OF KAK. 

(o) Shown from the condemnation resting upon all who do notaooept 

Christ. 

John 3 : 18— "ha that baliercfth not hath htm. jadgsd tlretdj, b«0Mue ha hath not bali«T«d on tha nana of tha only 
bagottan Son of God " ; 86 — "ha that obejath not tha Son shall not laa lift, but tha vrath of God aUdath on him**; 
Ck>inpare 1 John 5 : 19 —"tha vhola world liath in [i. e., in union with ] tha aril ana" ; see Annotated 
Paragraph Bible, inloco. Kaftan, Dogrmatik, 818— "Law requires love to God. This 
Implies love to our neighbor, not only abstainingr from all injury to him, but ricrhteous- 
ness in all our relations, forgivincr instead of requitinfr, help to enemies as well as 
friends in all salutary ways, self -discipline, avoidance of all sensuous immoderation, 
TUbJeotion of all sensuous activity as means for spiritual ends in the kingdom of Qod, 
and all this, not as a mat^r of outward conduct merely, but from the heart and as the 
satisfaction of one's own will and desire. This is the will of God respecting us, which 
Jesus has revealed and of which he is the example in his life. Instead of this, man 
universally seeks to promote his own life, pleasure, and honor." 

(d) Consistent with those passages which at first sight seem to ascribe 
to certain men a goodness which renders them acceptable to God, where a 
closer examination will show that in each case the goodness supposed is a 
merely imperfect and fancied goodness, a goodness of mere aspiration and 
impulse due to preliminary workings of God's Spirit, or a goodness resolt- 
ing from the trust of a conscious sinner in Gbd's method of salvation. 

In Mai 9 : 12— "Thaj that ara vhola hara no naad of a phjiiBian, bat thaj that ara liak "—Jesus means 
those who in their own esteem are whole ; e/. 18— "I aaaa not to eall tha rightaooa, bat dnaan " ■■ 
** if any were truly righteous, they would not need my salvation ; if they think them- 
selves so, they will not care to seek it ** ( An. Par. Bib. ). In Lake 10 : 30-37 — the parable of 
the good Samaritan —Jesus intimates, not that the good Samaritan was not a sinner, 
but that there wei^e saved sinners outside of the bounds of Israel. In Acta iO : 85 — " in amty 
nation ha that fisarath him, and workath rightaoaanaia, is aocaptabla to him"— Peter declares, not that Cor- 
nelius was not a sinner, but that Qod had accepted him through Christ ; Cornelius was 
already Justified, but he needed to know (1) that he was saved, and (8) how he was 
saved ; and Peter was sent to tell him of the fSct, and of the method, of his salvation 
in Christ. In &om.2:14 — "for whan Gantilas that hara not tha law do bjnatara tha things of tha law, thaaa,Bal 
having tha law, ara a law nnto thamaalTas" — it is only said that in certain respects the obedience 
of these Gentiles shows that they have an unwritten law in their hearts ; It is not said 
that they perfectly obey the law and therefore have no sin — for Paul says immediately 
after ( Rom. 3:9) — " wabafora laid to tha ehaxga bott of Jews and Graaks, thatthay ara all ondar lin." 

So with regard to the words " parliBet *' and " apright, " ss applied to godly men. We shall 
see, when we come to consider the doctrine ot Sanctiflcation, that the word "parfaot," as 
applied to spiritual conditions already attained, signifies only a relative perfection, 
equivalent to sincere piety or maturity of Christian judgment, in other words, the per- 
fection of a sinner who has long trusted in Christ, and in whom Christ has overcome 
his chief defects of character. See 1 Cor. 2 : 6 — " wa spaak wisdom among tha perfoct " ( Am. Bev.: 
•< among tham that ara fiill-grown ") ; PhiL 3 : 15 — " Lat as tharafora, u many as ara parfaot, ba thas miadad '* — i.e^ 
to press toward the goal— a goal expressly said by the apostles to be not yet attained 
(▼.12-14). 

** Est deus in nobis ; agitante calescimus iUo.'* Qod is the " spark that fires our clay." 
S. S. Times, Sept. 21, 1901 : 609 — " Humanity Is better and worse than men have i)ainted it* 
There has been a kind of theological pessimism in denouncing human sinfulness, which 
has been blind to the abounding love and patience and courage and fidelity to duty 
among men." A. H. Strong, Christ in Creation, 287-290— "There is a natural life of 
Christ, and that life pulses and throbs in all men everywhere. All men are created in 
Christ, before they are recreated in him. The whole race lives, moves, and has its being 
in liim, for he is the soul of its soul and the life of its life.** To Christ then, and not to 
unaided human nature, we attribute the noble impulses of unregenerate men. These 
impulses are drawings of his Spirit, moving men to repentance. But they are influ- 
ences of his grace which, if resisted, leave the soul in more than its original darkness. 

2. Proof from history ^ observation, and the common judgment of 
mankind, 

( a ) History witnesses to the nniversality of sin, in its aoooants of the 
universal prevalence of priesthood and saorifioe. 



THE UNIVERSALITY OF SIN. 575 

See references la Luthardt, Fund. Truths, 161-17S. 335-839. Baptist Review, 1883 : 343 — 
" Plutarch speaks of the tear-stained eyes, the pallid and woe-bORone countenancoB 
which ho sees at the public altars, men roUinjr themselves in the mire and confessing 
their sins. Among the common people the dull feeliDg of g'ullt was too real to be 
shaken off or laughed away.'* 

(&) Every man knows himself to have oome short of moral perfection, 
and, in proportion to his experience of the world, recognizes the fact that 
every other man has come short of it also. 

Chinese proverb : ** There are but two good men ; one Is dead, and the other is not yet 
bom.*' Idaho proverb : ** The only good Indian is a dead Indian." But the proverb 
applies to the white man also. Dr. Jacob Chamberlain, the missionary, said : ** I never 
but once in India heard a man deny that he was a sinner. But once a Brahmin Inter- 
rupted me and said : * I deny your premisses. I am not a sinner. I do not need to do 
better. ' For a moment I was abashed. Then I said : * But what do your neighbors 
say?' Thereupon one cried out: *He cheated me in trading horses'; another: 'He 
defrauded a widow of her inheritance.* The Brahmin went out of the house, and I 
never saw him again." A great nephew of Richard Brinaley Sheridan, Joseph Sheridan 
Le Fanu, when a child, wrote In a few lines an ^ Essay on the Life of Man,'* which ran 
as follows: ** A man's life naturally divides itself Into three distinct parts: the first 
when he is contriving and planning all kinds of villainy and rascality,— that is the 
period of youth and innocence. In the second, he is found putting In practice all the 
villainy and rascality he has contrived,— that Is the flower of mankind and prime of 
life. The third and last period is that when he is making his soul and preparing for 
another world,— that is the period of dotage." 



( c) The common judgment of mankind declares that there is an element 
of selfishness in every human heart, and that every man is prone to some 
form of sin. This common judgment is expressed in the maxims : *'No 
man is perfect" ; *' Every man has his weak side", or "his price" ; and 
every great name in literature has attested its truth. 

Seneca, De Ira, 3 : 26 — '* We are all wicked. What one blames in another he will find 
in his own bosom. We live among the wicked, ourselves being wicked " ; Ep., 22 — *' No 
one has strength of himself to emerge [ from this wickedness ] ; some one must needs 
hold forth a hand ; some one must draw us out." Ovid, Met., 7 : 19 — " I see the things 
that are better and I approve them, yet I follow the worse .... We strive even after 
that which is forbidden, and we desire the things that are denied." Cicero : ** Nature 
has given us faint sparks of knowledge ; we extinguish them by our immoralities." 

Shakespeare, Othello, 3:3 — " Where's that palace wherelnto foul things Sometimes 
intrude not? Who has a breast so pure. But some uncleanly apprehensions keep leets 
[meetings in court] and law-days, and in sessions sit With meditations lawful?" 
Henry VI., 11:3:3—" Forbear to Judge, for we are sinners alL" Hamlet, 2 : 2, com- 
pares (rod's influence to the sun which "breeds maggots in a dead dog, Kissing car^ 
rion,"— that is, God is no more responsible for the corruption in man's heart and the 
evil that comes from It, than the sun is responsible for the maggots which Its heat 
breeds in a dead dog ; 8 : 1 — " We are arrant knaves alL" Timon of Athens, 1:2— 
** Who lives that 's not depraved or depraves ? " 

Goethe : " I see no fault committed which I too might not have committed." I>r. 
Johnson : " Every man knows that of himself which he dare not tell to his dearest 
friend." Thackeray showed himself a master in fiction by having no heroes ; the para- 
(f ons of virtue belonged to a cruder age of romance. So George Eliot represents life 
correctly by setting before us no perfect characters ; aU act from mixed motives. 
Carlyle, hero-worshiper as he was inclined to be. Is said to have become disgusted with 
each of his heroes before he finished his biography. Emerson said that to understand 
any crime, he had only to look into his own heart. Robert Bums: " God knows I 'm 
no thing I would be. Nor am I even the thing I could be." Huxley : '* The best men of 
the best epochs are simply those who make the fewest blunders and commit the fewest 
sins.*^ And he speaks of " the infinite wickedness" which has attended the course of 
human history. Matthew Arnold : " What mortal, when he saw. Life's voyage done, 
his heavenly Friend, Could ever yet dare tell him fearlessly :— I have kept uninfringed 



5T^ jtjnHir>?o:/>5T. oi tsz »:Tir3rz or 



V, t.'u^. *n*l ' * Vufier 2»*»tr.r- *'.>^jcr*-i .f >:*•»?.& • TVr nt-st tlT tzCLrrj tr. ai.e shks* & 
<4B*r vnui^. icin 3rt7*r -.c r«i:irt*j. :f jo. HL-.oaZAj iv^ naj «-. tts: "Hit n^iint ^i 

J>HEfi. fe^O^ft 'W'jr'jxj vxjQT^ XLiKiT 7*Kr» f -r * xufCixr^ c< txmtirjar f*cr-^«iEi» 



3, I^X/f/rK/rn ChriMUin fxp>erUgtyyi, 

(a ) In jfr^/pf/rti^m to Lis sptntoal progrefls does tiie Chrislimn recoenise 
«TiJ 4ixif^mtioTin vitbin kim, vbich bat for dfyizke gnce migiit germinate 
mA hriut^ U/riL ihh mfM rarifnu fonns of aotwmrd trmnagK&dcaL, 

il0i0: ('ftpA'm\n'% «rxp«^rfc!fVA. fn Bidrd. fSk/blm Bereaied, fOf ; Goodvxn, member of the 
WtMutltunUrr AMm^ruMf fpf JfiviofM, ttfsukiag of hie conrenfocu Mf?: ""An fti'C&^a^i 
4U¥i!fjv*frj wMM nuAfs to riM; ^/f m j invurl lusRs and concapaccnce. and I was mmaut^ to 
•M!; wMh whmt ifT*^AlWfA I hjid ir/uirfat the flrnuiflcfttioo of c^erysin.'' TXTlDC-r's expe^ 
rUstt^tfi, In MjvUti«^^j'« IhKnaMtkfn TiUnfT, thr/unrh inclined to Pelaffianism. 9aj«: **! 
J/y/k ifit/i my ovn b'Art amJ I r^jC; with petiitent sorrow that I must in G<>i'5 ss«bt accoae 
myt^lt of *1J tb'r 'Mtrfi'^m I hii%'«; nam^d."— and be had named onlj* deliberate transfrce. 
ai/^TM ; ~ ** h^ w^i// do^ ri'^ aJJ^/w thftt he is fiimf l«rl j iniUty. let him look deep into his 
4fwn tthurt.** John N<fwt/>n iifit» the murderer led to execution, and aajs : "* Tlfeeies. but 
tfff tf0' ^rnf^'. of <i*Ml, if*0m Jfjbn Newton." Count de Matotre: •* I do not know what 
tti^f htmrt fff a ir1il*f n may l^e — I only know that of a virtuous man, and that is fri^t- 
ful/' Tholij«;k« on Hit: fiftieth annfvenary of hia profeasonhip at Halle, said to hte 
atiidenUi : ** f n r*!vUrw <ft r,*A*9 manifold blearingi, the thin^ I seem moat to thank him 
firr la thdi f:tmvU:tUm of afn." 

Wru'^r Ajicham : ** lly experience we And out a short way, by a long- wandering.** lakt 
II .tun \n ntfttUitlnvm mUtmn\ Ut an Indlcatintr that there are m^me of God's children who 
tuivtrr wnttfU'r from th/; Fatljer's hou«v^ But th(;re were two prodigals in .that family. 
'flMt f'ldfrr wfM a sfrrvarit In npf rf t as well as the younger. J. J. Murphy, Xat, Selection 
and Hplr, ymntlom, 41, 42— ^ In the wish of the elder son that he might sometimes feast 
ffltti tils own fii^'n^ls arwrt frrmi his father, was contained the germ of that desire to 
tmtttiHi the wholesr^rne rr^itraints of home which, in its full development, had brought 
hlN brriihirr first Ut riotous living, and aft^^rwards to the service of the stranger and the 
hording of swini}. This rrxit of sin is In us all, but In him It was not so fuH-grown as 
to bring d<4iih. Yot )ui says : 'U. tlMt muy yean do I lem tkse* (6ovAcvm— as a bondanrrant \ 
'm4 I iMT«r tnuufTMMd a eomnuodiiieDt of thiiM.' Are the father's commandments grievoos? Is 
Sffrvlcft truo and slrferv;, without love from the heart ? The elder brother was calcula- 
ting Uiwftrd his fiiiher and unsym]>athetio toward his brother.** Sir J. R. Seelye, Ecce 
IforiKM **No virtue f^in Ik; Mifo, unless it is enthusiastic." Wordsworth: ** Heaven 
riiJfMHa tlio lovo Of nifjcly calculated less or more.*' 

(h) HinvA) thoHO mcmt enlightened by the Holy Spirit recognize them- 
fMilvoM tiH guilty of iitiiiumlxTed violationB of the divine law, the abeenoe 
of fiiiy coriHcionHnfiHH of Hin on the ])art of unregenerate men most be 
rngardod nn proof iliut tlioy are blinded by persistent transgression. 

It In a H'lnarkablo fact that, while those who are enlightened by the Holy Spirit and 
who an* ui'tiiiilly fivfrcoining their sins see more and more of the evil of their hearts 
and llvoM, thomt who am tho slaves of sin see loss and less of that evil, and of ten deny 
that thoy aro NiiincrHataii. Uousseau, in his ConfosAlons, confesses sin in a spirit which 
itaulf tiUKls to bo ounf ossed. Ho glosses over his vices, and magnifies his virtues. *' No 



THE UNITERSALITY OF SIN. 677 

man,*' ho says, ** can oomo to the throne of God and say : ' I am a better man than 
Rou89(?au.' .... Let the trumpet of the last judgment sound when it will : I will present 
myself before the Sovereign Judge i^ith this book in my hand, and I will say aloud: 
' Hero is what I did, what I thought, and what I was.' " " Ah," said he. Just before be 
expired, ** how happy a thing it is to die, when one has no reason for remorse or self- 
reproach I " And then, addressing himself to the Almighty, he said : ** Eternal Bein^, 
the soul that I am going to give thee back is as pure at this moment as it was when it 
proceeded from thee ; render it a partaker of thy felicity ! " Yet, in his boyhood, Uous- 
seau was a petty thief. In his writings, he advocated adultery and suicide. He lived 
for more than twenty years in practical licentiousness. His children, most of whom, 
if not all, were illegitimate, he sent off to the foundling hospital as soon as they were 
born, thus casting them upon the charity of strangers, yet he inflamed the mothers of 
France with his eloquent appeals to them to nurse their own babies. He was mean, 
vacillating, treacherous, hypocritical, and blasphemous. And in his Confessions, be 
rehearses the exciting scenes of his life in the spirit of the bold adventurer. See N. M. 
Williams, in Bap. Review, art. : Rousseau, from which the substance of the above Is 
taken. 

Edwin Forrest, when accused of being' converted in a religious revival, wrote an 
indignant denial to the public press, saying that he had nothing to regret ; his sins were 
those of omission rather than oommiSBiou ; he had always acted upon the principle 
of loving his friends and hating his enemies ; and trusting in the Justice as well as the 
mercy of God, he hopiMl, when he left this earthly sphere, to * wrap the drapery of his 
oouch about him, and lie down to pleasant dreams.* And yet no man of his time was 
more arrogant, self-sufficient, licentious, revengef uL John Y. MoCane, when sentenced 
to Sing Sing prison for six years for violating the election laws by the most highhanded 
bribery and ballot-stulBng, declared that he had never done anything wrong in his life. 
He was a Sunday School Superintendent, moreover. A lady who lived to the a^ of 03, 
protested that, if she had her whole life to live over airaln, she would not alter a single 
thing. Lord Nelson, after he had received his death wound at Trafalgar, said : ** I have 
never been a great sinner." Yet at that very time he was living in open adultery. 
Tennyson, Sea Dreams : ** With all his conscience and one eye askew. So false, he partly 
took himself for true.** Contrast the utterance of the apostle Paul : i Tim. 1 :i5— "Okziit 
Jams cama into the world to mto linnfln ; of whom I am cliiefl" It has been well said that ^' the erreatest 
of sins is to be conscious of none." Rowland Hill : ** The devil makes little of sin, that 
he may retain the sinner.'* 

The following reasons may be suggested for men's unconsciousness of their sins : 
1. We never know the force of any evil passion or principle within us, until we begin 
to resist it. 2. God's providential restraints upon sin have hitherto prevented its full 
development. 8. God's judgments against sin have not yet been made manifest. 4. Sin 
itself has a blinding influence upon the mind. 6. Only he who has been saved from the 
penalty of sin is willing to look into the abyss from which he has been rescued.— That 
a man is unconscious of any sin is therefore only proof that he is a great and hardened 
trunsgrt'ssor. This is also the most hopeless feature of his case, since for one who never 
realizes his sin there is no salvation. In the light of this truth, we see the amazing grace 
of God, not only in the gift of Christ to die for sinners, but in the gift of the Holy Spirit 
to convince men of their sins and to lead them to accept the Savior. Pa. 90 : 8 — "Thoa kaik 
set ... Our lecret nni in Um lig^t of thj ooaateoanM" =* man's inner sinfulness is hidden from him- 
self, until it is contrasted with the holiness of God. Light => a luminary or sun, which 
shines down into the depths of the heart and brings out its hidden evil into painful 
relief. See Julius MUller, Doctrine of Sin, 2 : 248-250; Edwards, Works, 2 : 888; John 
Cainl, Reasons for Men's Unconsdousneas of their Sins, in Sermons, 88. 

n. EyEBY member of the human BAOBy WIXHOXTT EXOEFTIONy POSSES- 
SES A OOBBUFTED NATUBE, WHIOH IS A SOUBOB OF ACTUAL SIN, AND IS ITSELF 

SIN. 

1. Proof from Scripture. 

A. The sinful acts and dispositions of men are referred to, and explained 
by, a corrupt nature. 

By * nature * we mean that which is bom in a man, that which he has by birth. That 
there is an inborn corrupt state, from which sinful acts and dispositions flow, is evident 

37 



rS iJTEiiuyic-i^eT. C'L rEi loi"!: »i rar 




■ 1* 



Ti:« •rjT^jr. ucrm: t Xf^.Oinf^ 7. tusl tran. iiif iiss zuomsm of las 





Iw'it j» •.'<^:'4kRiX4c KIT ii» Hi .niKT- f stx. inr lU' vrLsn. 

jt>9» !«•:« \v '.b* \»s^ tu\m»'ftr. If? lut '.--nK^-iiiix. TukHwjl^ qutnrt ^>r £. B. dmith. 

m-^t^. vw. *tp: Una. luwt^^f.. » FOXTT I'n^se* V.C.* Siirflu Z^apxu Tiwi^fzftl — 
' '.0ic^A ivsmrn* zut ln'^ tiac it^ yrm i*iET smfiu ■» ■! afrparvsiiL n! &» 
jaK* •i'A «/' Mounts'? . MXjt b'R m m *.-;.i*iiiPt ^.r n' ; ^ i^ Z — 
^m&cMdKift a. i '-* 

v;. ; V'X •:itL f :^ < cii'.'ir Z30^. iitCJ-n: uzjc izi^^uTitLik a-'zex'^'ZTj nf TkiK nizmnr 

V «* ' «<H I t - * Tie vziSLx MR tfte&«K xi^' ^ -f . suxxittZ-iisuisT fixnideTdfrmc God. 
y- ^n^. . TiM*r.tf^r7 i : Si — •" '.\irHr^ yrw, tiK-v vzi^ -VTif ir tiwt. «. j> ; * ?• ** ■"■P •^ ' 
' Ik. ' r iiiji Tsft vBjft - un tff lat ftai x ftai ^jb : < . ixuc » • 71221:1211: :lit rvt MpBCter 
— ■ i«fl, «r% •n-:_ uuita;u^ li**?- urt "ir.cx «^-:_ ~ 

if-t»r7 2xjia*» o**-;;**: 1**-. tuii Tbt *»-t "•rrj'.a. fcry Tfctiijfr sKKim.-fr .^ liuc KViiaxics 
i'jri^tmtu C- J*. '.'rtii'/L : - vr» nr* 9^*::rrjt '-uiii n. veiu ; M&z * t max Tr» uptbt amu; 
j&_ '^-.ir "Sw^ ','.4Ximi:j:;:ijjr Ii-li*' T'.- r«ii .•^t "an- ^uib:'V7 iki^-;2^' Ix 'bf bnars of ^itflj 
ow: '>f t* it tsrtrt iyttrf:^ ~ 'nMvi -i- »;,' ■wtiift tat K.rar «iiv« in* ui|k*1 sbc'vvidto 

it 'XA«aa:}«b'.«L ii 'jt^wr. :x aikr-if '.•j£ *•:«■=&. Ion » errryvsHr? liit mim- rrmnic 
erL. hrrA ww'vb tri-T cif - ThM merhlM&^ufr t.k2=x c^ ss. ixj!> ^osodJtsK rpMk. ihii 

£. O. JioUnyic Cbnp^ TaKiL. XL IC — -Tbt cft«>ecci:ni lifci coK-Jesiop yrix^iF xio 

tfcdet Uj^nt urt fiiwt fc'<>«cr.>r>« Vj w^rne. -■■birr ibe priricipt: 1* h:o3«! Away bermd 
tbt n^c.-i '^ *jtxM^:ifrjR*i^. In ;o.if ■"■iij^ u;- :» i3;-=3siri:c:- :i m iae rizD^ errorts the 
•:x*tiM3ii3Ci^m 'A Dkv^^ : H SC I — teuA. I tv Bnops ioni 2 zurr^ lac 2 bl d£ arr aflkr ■•- 
MLTt ML f>AM.'jtziffi; t7b'.«t irJ-it Vj ite »MX in thfr InbeTTuO aaruTR.- 

B. AJJ iwfii Jir*; dfncijuvirl t^j bt br natare childi^n of -wraih ( Eph. 2:3). 
M#^re ' h}aX'*r*z ' hUaii^hn gometloL^ inbL^zn an! oii^rinaLl. as di53ingTiished 
frum tljukt » Lk'L i* »sul/«yiutLitI v at^^-zireJ. The teit i=:]^i:e? that : { fl '1 Sin 
ij» a ziat >;/«;, ixi tii«r jj^ixM: of a o.-z-^'vLital depraTirr t-f tLr vilL ( ?» ) This 
itaLiurH u if^iiltv imd oondemiable, — .^ii.ct GvhI** wrath rest* only npim that 
wbi/:L d^^M^^n-es it f o ) AH ziieu partieiijate in this catnip and in this oon- 
ikbf i^ysui (milt tkiifl condemnation. 



If*.2 : t^" v«% tr itfBR ciiiirR: «f vnsk. enzmi^ ns." Sbedd : ** Xanzre bere is not sub- 
9t4UifA cnai^] hy <»*mI, but oorruptiun cif that sub«taDc«, which c\«mipciviD is created br 
Biaii/' * Natur*; ' iftni najtrj^f maj denote anyrhin^ inlom. ax>d ibe term mar Just 
aa pr*fptir\Y fi/hnifputUi ini/'jm <ivl\ teodcnck'S and exati.\ as inN-im fainiltk« or sulnttanoe. 
• If Mtan t iMind'fff —-by birth * * ; compare GC 2 a — ■ J«»» \j zasof." E. G. R<>biiM>n : 
'* Nature i- mit ni^u, or ewnioe, but only qualification of tiirnrff, as somethinff bom 



THB UNIVERSALITY OF SIK. 579 

In us. There is just as much difference in babes, from the begrinningr of their existence, 
as there is in adults. If sin is defined as ' voluntary transfrression of known law,' the 
definition of course disposes of orierinal sin." But if sin is a selfish state of the will, such 
a state is demonstrably inborn. Aristotle speaks of some men as bom to be savagres 
( ^v<rct pdppapoi, ), and of others as destined by nature to be slaves ( ^vacc dovAot )• Here 
evidently is a congenital aptitude and disposition. Similarily we can Interpret PauPs 
words as declaring nothing leas than that men are possessed i^ birth of an aptitude and 
disposition which is the object of Ood's just displeasure. 

The opposite view can be found in Stevens, Pauline Theology, 1BS3-107. Principal Fair- 
balm also says that inherited sinfulness *^is not transgression, and is wUhout guilt." 
Rltschl, Just, and Recon., 844—** The predicate * children of wrath ' refers to the former 
actual transgression of those who now as Christians have the right to apply to them- 
selves that divine purpose of grace which is the antithesis of wrath.'* Meyer interprets 
the verse : ** We become children of wrath by following a natural propensity." He 
claims the doctrine of the apostle to be, that man incurs the divine wrath by his actual 
sin, when he submits his will to the inborn sin principle. So N. W. Taylor, Condo ad 
Clcrum, quoted in H. B. Smith, System, 281 — ** We were by nature such that we became 
through our own act children of wrath." **But," says Smith* **lf the apostle had 
meant this, he could have said so; there is a proi>er Greek word for* became'; the 
word which is used can only be rendered 'were.'" So lOor. 7:14 — "el» ware toot ohildntt 
oneleui "— implies that, apart from the operations of grace, all men are defiled in virtue 
of their very birth from a corrupt stock. Cloth is first died In the wool, and then dyed 
again after the weaving. 3ian is a ** double-dyed villain." He is corrupted by nature 
and afterwards by practice. The colored physician in New Orleans advertised that his 
method was ** first to remove the disease, and then to eradicate the system.*' The New 
School method of treating this text is of a similar sort. Beginning with a definition of 
sin which excludes from that category all inborn states of the will, it proceeds to vacate 
of their meaning the positive statements of Scripture. 

For the proper Interpretation of Iphu 2:3, see Julius Mtlller, Doot. of Sin, 2:278, and 
Commentaries of Harless and Olshausen. See also Philippi, Olaubenslehre, 3 : 212 sg. ; 
Thomasius, Christi Person und Werk, 1 :289; and an excellent note in the Expositor's 
Greek N. T., in loco. Per co7Ura^ see Beuss, Christ. TheoL in Apoet. Age, 2 :29, 79-84 ; 
Weiss, Bib. TheoL N. T., 289. 

0. Death, the penalty of sin, is visited even npon those who have never 
exercised a x)ersonal and conscious choice ( Bom. 5 : 12-14 ). This text 
implies that ( a ) Sin exists in the case of infants prior to moral conscious- 
ness, and therefore in the nature, as distinguished from the personal 
activity. ( 6 ) Since infants die, this visitation of the x)enalty of sin upon 
them marks the ill-desert of that nature which contains in itself, though 
undeveloped, the germs of actual transgression. ( o ) It is therefore certain 
that a sinful, guilty, and condemnable nature belongs to all mankind. 

Rom. 5:12-14 — "Therefore, as through one nun sin eBtered Into the world, and death throoghiin; and lo death 
IMssed onto all men, for that all sinned: — for until the law lin was in the world; bat sin is not impated when there is 
DO Uw. MeTerthelflss death rugned firom idam until Mosei^ eyen OTor them that had notdnned after the likeneas of 
Adam's tnuugression'* —that is, over those who, like infanta, had never personally and con« 
sciously sinned. See a more full treatment of these last words in connection with an 
ezeKesis of the whole passagre — Rom. 5 : 12-19 — under Imputation of Sin, pages 685-627. 

K. W. Taylor maintained that infants, prior to moral agency, are not subjects of the 
moral government of Ood, any more than are animals. In this he disagreed with 
EdwardSi Bellamy, Hopkins, Dwight, Smalley, Oriflto. See Tyler, Letters on N. B. 
Theol., 8, 132-142— ^ To say that animals die, and therefore death can be no proof of sin 
in infants, is to take infidel ground. The infidel has Just as good a right to say : Because 
animals die without being sinners, therefore adults may. If death may reign to such an 
alarming extent over the human race and yet be no proof of sin, then you adopt the 
principle that death may reign to any extent over the universe, yet never can be made 
a proof of sin in any case.*' We reserve our full proof that physical death is the penalty 
of sin to the section on Penalty as one of the Consequences of Sin. 

2. Proof firom Reason, 

Three facts demand explanation : ( a ) The uniyersal existence of sinful 



■ • - 






.t _ 



.'-* 



I a 



■_**:t 



S^Z -^ 






^1= '.-ar> 



■se* 



1— :. ^'i i^u^Uf ~a 



— » lltf 









»- Sl^ 



.a^; . ^..■^ "- 






^H. '». ^■.•. '* 



•. * ■• 



1w 







THB UNIVEBSALITY OP SIN. 581 

opposed to this and goes agraliist it.'— Compare this passaaro with Paul, in Rom. 7 : 23 — ' I 
Me a diffarent Uw in mj memban, varring against tlM law of mj mind, and bringing me into oaptiTitj under the law 
of sin which is in mj members.' But as Aristotle does not explain the cause, so he sug^gests no 
euro. Revelation alone can account for the disease, or point out the remedy." 

Wuttke, Christian Ethics, 1 : 102— "Aristotle makes the sicrniflcant and almost surpris- 
ing: observation, tliat the character which has become evil by gruilt can Just as little be 
thrown off a^ln at mere volition, as the person who has made himself sick by his own 
fault can become wcU affain at mere volition ; once become evil or sick, it stands no 
longer within his discretion to cease to be so : a stone, when once oast, cannot be caught 
back from its flight ; and so is it with the character that has become evlL'* He does not 
t«ll ** how a reformation in character is possible,— moreover, ho does not concede to 
evil any other than an individual effect, — knows nothing of any natural solidarity of 
evil in self-propagating, morally degenerated races '* ( Nic Eth., 8:fi,7;5:12:7:2,3; 
10 : 10 ). The good nature, he says, ** is evidently not within our i>owor, but is by some 
kind of divine causality conferred upon the truly happy.** 

Plato speaks of '' that blind, many-headed wild beast of all that is evil within thee." 
He repudiates the idea that men are naturally good, and says that, if this were true, all 
that would be needed to make them holy would be to shut them up, from their earliest 
years, so that they might not be corrupted by others. Republic, 4 ( Jowett's trans- 
lation, 11 : 276 ) — *^ There is a rising up of part of the soul against the whole of the soul.*' 
Meno, 89 — *' The cause of corruption is from our parents, so that we never relinquish 
their evil way, or escape the blemish of their evil habit." Horace, Ep., 1 : 10—'* Naturam 
cxpollas furca, tamen usque recurrot." Latin proverb : ** Nemo repente fuit turpissi- 
mus." Pascal : '* We are bom unrighteous ; for each one tends to himself, and the bent 
toward self is the beginning of all disorder." Kant, in his Metaphysical Principles of 
Human Morals, speaks of **the indwelling of an evil principle side by side with the 
good one, or the radical evil of human nature," and of ** the contest between the good 
and the evil principles for the control of man." ** Hegel, pantheist as he was, declared 
that original sin is the nature of every man,— every man begins with it" (H. B. 
Smith). 

Shakespeare, Timon of Athens, 4 : 8—*' All is oblique : There's nothing level in our 
cursed natures. But direct villainy." All's Well, 4 :8 — ** As wo are in ourselves, how 
weak we arc I Merely our own traitors.** Measure for Measure, 1 : 2—" Our natures 
do pursue. Like rats that ravin down their proper bane, A thirsty evil, and when we 
drink, we die." Hamlet, 3 : 1 — '' Virtue cannot so inoculate our old stock, but we shall 
relish of it.*' Love's Labor Lost, 1 : 1 — "Every man with his affects is bom. Not by 
might mastered, but by special grace." Winter's Tale, 1:2 — ** We should have 
answered Heaven boldly. Not guilty; the imposition cleared Hereditary ours"— that 
is, provided our hereditary connection with Adam had not made us guilty. On the 
theology of Shakespeare, see A. H. Strong, Great Poets, 196-211 —** If any think it irra- 
tional to believe in man's depravity, guilt, and need of supernatural redemption, they 
must also be prepared to say that Shakespeare did not understand human nature." 

S. T. Coleridge, Omniana, at the end : ** It is a fundamental article of Christianity 
that I am a fallen creature .... that an evil ground existed in my will, previously to 
any act or assignable moment of time in my consciousness ; I am bom a child of 
wrath. This fearful mystery I pretend not to understand. I cannot even conceive the 
possibility of it ; but I know that it is so, ... . and what is real must be possible." A 
sceptic who gave his children no religious training, with the view of letting them each 
in mature years choose a faith for himself, reproved Coleridge for letting his garden 
run to weeds ; but Coleridge replied, that he did not think it right to prejudioo the 
soil in favor of roses and strawl)erries. Van Oosterzee : Rain and sunshine make weeds 
grow more quicklj', but could not draw them out of the soil if the seeds did not lie there 
al ready ; so evil educat ion and example draw out sin, but do not implant it. Tennyson, 
Two Voices : ** He fl nds a baseness in his blood. At such strange war with what is good. 
He cannot do the thing he would." Roljert Browning, Gold Hair : a Legend of Pomic : 
** The faith that launched point-blank her dart At the head of a lie — taught Original 
Sin, The corruption of Man's Heart." Taine, Ancien Regime: ** Savage, brigand and 
madman each of us harbors, in repose or manacled, but always living, in the recesses 
of his own heart." Alexander Maclaren : ** A great mass of knotted weeds growing in 
a stagnant pool is dragged toward you as you drag one filament** Draw out one sin, 
and it brings with it the whole matted nature of sin. 

Chief Justice Thomiwon, of Pennsylvania: **If those who preach had been lawyers 
previous to entering the ministry, they would know and say far more about the deprav- 



■'>^' * V-n :rir*^»Ty?»i7. "k?l T3.Z ji)iT:iI3rH OF 

-- ■» •-.«» i:m4fi -.«mrt -liaTi 'h^^ Iru Th«» Mil loirrm:e it "ntai ifCuiai iLjf 'Ji rfae •nxly 
- r *r >.n •-, i,ii«ir. hi* :'«;«• fit i-tij*. -titf> lijtni >cff>r~ie?. ~he .icratlouBxeas. lod tbe 

•3a . vT^ .•-<i«pMir:n ' -h^ •M— ll-rwi ■»*' iir lanin*. ' Ve Ziiwnrns. ■ '^TTznxiu rin. in 



"^ f'-i -'-^arrkr.l '«-> 'ii»* .r<rn -if -lib* ^infril oanxrw •yhi«'h ia i^ommun ^ tiie 

u. -'/i-t. T'i<* ^yr-vi^ii !•.>«. ".ii-.T-T.*-. ? *:i*r "iie riirin :f ^his aiKcnre tsd that 
•'■••■A «/** -/ -,i,i- ;'.i-,t jftr^nfH '-'* Tr:::t»ii 'lie*" "nrnAHi i^fn'r fpnnL GotL cor- 
r\yj*^'\ "n**Tnii^ir-»%fl. mil ->r-,ntj\\r. -hemj^eiT*^ ini:«ir die X3«^i2alties of die !»▼. 



''«»r. » .• r-'iT^ o** -iUtor*/-;!! '.M-r n r'lji'-n .r jb .-■•thiL "^ ' iiaiy •♦■rxiaily iBenc tu ctae 
•••«*■•' •'".^ '*^vft -'tif rV 'p • iliip -f .iisfiT^i-a* -•"■»nr.^ Ji .n "htfir .lUfiAi. fiiRUili>:tzic«. Ehit in 
f^ fr. V -«Aa«*0 jqi-* y ■ n«»t r'lirh -Jv^ .iii»n aiimiflfNi .« ":i»* luT raar .r !iiii» Te*»ii -exhibited in 
y-'^r.^: r* 1* -fiiif imI .n''i»rrk«r -.f -\\t* *rn*■.^wM 'it rr^Htft* 'v.t ?«ir?ui Je ji She a^ 
i-'i**<nr #»*■» f rt*^.-!#k»n ip'l nr»>n;jp*ni-p "r'-imraxmr :'"»r teTirii' ^•T-'e: '"^m •Rnciy a 
^/ki^ IT./1 f rt-.--/ inrH-.f^^^nf ■)»!•*. '>«'*i'!»^ .ili'Ji. IP -ii»» :fa»T 'iwr 'MA "rumpii "ima ▼»« in a 
. -♦r»-V'^i I'^at ind -nr« »rifJMirvir-m»»nt f "r 'lie ar^^t*!!: w.urn r*»sts iwic ihat tSa*:c. :?o 
.-/■ "rt^ -fiii«> -,' ■' nt-iit .1 .v.«ii;",>rr,rn ii^ -j ;rii ■.nini»»rj»e ^rrni ■fitnilli.'suiiw Jii a prin- 
■ ■■,•# f (*•.» .iiT- ,n ^mprifiai iftir* -^f "iinr r-*r7 ■iirfTJidiTiai't* j* "Jt* iuT time tile pnnci- 
V »*« *r»iwi:: / ^■5»i;-/>>d -,t "i-.p :n Trlii-.m -ii:inf.r.it ttt* <>uainie«i up mil 'J jl ji ' jaml , and 
-V r"i/,Fo n/.-r-.^f.-.r--* *h** y*^"*'* ■■^' r»».ix:'ij' :r lii ?rc^*rr^i 'q i-l wan receive hiiiL." 

A-» f • .*«v-'^-*nf 'r.r II V. ^nr.vlmr. rr»ilt*niprirn J9 ::i"C ''iilv ideal but acraal« 
>r. • « mr^ --iint .'-.•• -••! V, :cnr.-T -ri«r am ii* arc la. mi-r-.ra.-ie acL'tuxpanixnent of 
iii'Y^MP -ml JI".', -iM* *;is»f .r n«i1 « T,pri-,r.rai '-♦Hrnr.:::*. TrC Si" i .•r'«^n Ta^^^^ry shoohl 
5»'.-»;ii#lVf. v)r "^ /-I'-ninHrior, .-,f -r.p fur a. Wt» tt "uji pr»fiiiCf» ~iir .iR^svieniCioa Of Che 
i/-^--,* .,r<i ir/T.-.n*. '-v »"^f.%^«». =.7 atArma- rhiir ■■i«;r ne^ -"f :ni»rinr.on wi-uld permit ns 
V. •■■i/i,' 1 '-'1* fr-z/.n-.- ta .ri»'r,!r'»r!. .>T->r. if ir Tr^-rp oiyTQiia. t xi.;t^ir:n«.'aL AiGotl oon 
1W. V ..rt •»••'.« ,f '^r i.-y '^r.mp«'^lr;rr.. 4o h»* ."^n u.-w a^ =:»-raiT«!ii of inscruocinip 3ian» 
^.-A 'AHt «r.-> -i.-.^.MT.T.r, -v.rn a«npnri.ii TTSTh. Ci^Tge A '.am ^^I:cil -rbcerv^tf chat the 
•w/-* m-r. cvf^rrM ',f ;,•< "n;r;-7»* fr,:>.;rir*v .ir» th»=- in':rijei'*cal •?t;-i:vaL»rn.s i)f lacer phi- 
.r^w -.r.^^a ir.i^. *'',»^/'.">« ',f "h** ir.ir.=-«**. atA '\\.\t. -it CO tini»=- hiw r^vMiatii'^n refused to 
-^ m ,v.v".^^. ,ii*-mrtf. ''«'.r.r/-T:»»'ir,n.« f--.r the :r;^*»jaTi-:ure an-i oicvryan»?e of the hi^iier 
**v' •:* .v4i 'r ,rn« ^y!-. ^f'T ft^-.rr.r.:»n : ■•Fli^tiin and azrra have not yet b"wt their 
Ml .* f -.T* 'h¥-- -.i^-.n! <*r,r: .-"i.ar'.o'i'^ •*»3ioher. What a kni!wlr*ij«» of h.ii« ^^wn Eianzre has 
*v,f.'w ; ".wfi V, -,r- ^r^^\ *fir h."* ''•TFn ii»*>. ^••■-i *i3r*'.7 nuij aj*«" haTr- f- u&l to be trjfi^ for his 
rw^. v-,r *v..''. .' of r.*ryv»i*v «fP<i?r ?r>- v^.uf: rf the B:: .f^ .f the irr.ter. tn usinit for 
* ■« ',',.' ■^Mf' ::, ,--h ',r ft/- ♦ion, .^upr^.^-rl f har ht^ wtw itfin* h:;*r. ly. Only when the raine 
•.? ^.z ^'^ .*.. '.f* hr- t^i»/f.ir.jf d*^|"#rr.rl!* ur« n thi=? histt-noity .^f the alleiPTd face, does it 
'^/f,'r.r- .rr.r^M^wifi Ut \i^- mjth r,T fLc^.ir»r. f-.r the pi;rT-**»^ rf teat hing-.** See roL 1, 
.'.y ^1 '.f v.;* »',r'-c. wi'h q:; r.r j^riorj" fn-m i>-nney. ^nx-ii^* in Tbei^i«."*«T. ^*» *nd 
'. '.- .-. f.i. / vfrj-y:,. *v,. Rjirr .'J'-* : - Thf.u rir.il of all : :r.fi:3e liirhc into the jouli of 
,-' / '. f ■/ ." ■ 7 ♦..*.-, m^7 ^^: '^•n.4fi.*f1 'o kr.'i'w what t* the ro«"'t fn^tn which al*. their evils 
-. ''.'.jT 4rri '.>■ wr.^f f-.'si.r.'i fh'-y may av.id thf-m! " 

f. Tffp. H^rRrPTTRAii Acror^rr op the Tesiptatiox axd Fall ix Ges- 
r^fH '; : 1 -7. 

1. Hm fff.rtfrat rharnH^r not mythical or allegorical^ but hutoricaL 

W<: su}f,j& thifi viV;w fr>r the following reasons : — ( a ) There is no inti- 
niatioTi in i)kfi accrmnt itw^lf that it is not historicaL (6) As a part of a 




SCRIPTURAL ACCOUNT OF THE TEMPTATION AND FALL. 583 

historical book, the presumption is that it is itself historical. ( c ) The 
later Scripture writers refer to it as a veritable history even in its details. 
( d ) Particular features of the narrative, such as the placing of our first 
parents in a garden and the speaking of the tempter through a serpent- 
form, are incidents suitable to man's condition of innocent but untried 
childhood. ( e ) This view that the narrative is historical does not forbid 
our assuming that the trees of life and of knowledge were symbols of 
spiritual truths, while at the same time they were outward realities. 

Seo John 8 : 44 —"Te are of jonr fitthor the deril, ind Um losti ofjaax fiUlMr it ii 7001 villto do. Ha wu a mnr- 
derer from the begiiming, and standeth not in the truth, beoanae there ig no troth in him. Vhen he ipeaketha lie, he 
speakethofhisovn: lor he is a liar and the ikther thereof " ; 2 Cor. 11: 3— "the serpent beguiled Ire in hiieraftineBi"; 
Rer. 20 : 2 — " the dngon, the old serpent, vhioh is the DotH and Satan." H. B. Smith, System, 261 — *' If 
Christ's temptation and victory over Satan were historical events, there seems to be no 
grround for supposiner that the first temptation was not a historical event.** We believe 
in the unity and sufficiency of Scripture. We moreover regard the testimony of Christ 
and the apostles as conclusive with regard to the historicity of the account in Genesis. 
We assume a divine superintendence in the choice of material by its author, and the 
fulfilment to the apostles of Christ's promise that they should be eruidedlnto the truth. 
Paul's doctrine of sin is so manifestly based upon the historical character of the Gene- 
sis story, that the denial of the one must naturally lead to the denial of the other. 
John Milton writes, in his Areopagitica : ** It was from out of the rind of one apple 
tastod that the knowledge of good and evil, as two twins cleaving together, leaped 
forth into the world. And perhaps this is that doom which Adam fell into, that is to 
say, of knowing good by evlL" Ho should have learned to know evil as God knows it 
—as a thing possible, hateful, and forever rejected. He actually learned to know evil 
as Satan knows it— by making it actual and matter of bitter experience. 

Infantile and innocent man found his fit place and work In a garden. The language 
of appearances is doubtless used. Satan might enter into a brute-form, and might 
appear to speak through it. In all languages, the stories of brutes speaking show that 
such a temptation is congruous with the oondltion of early man. Asiatic myths agree 
in representing the serpent as the emblem of the spirit of eviL The tree of the knowl- 
edge of good and evil was the symbol of God's right of eminent domain, and indicated 
that all belonged to him. It is not necessary to suppose that it was known by this name 
before the Fall. By means of it man oame to know good, by the loss of it : to know 
evil, by bitter experience ; C. H. M. : "To know good, without the power to do it ; to 
know evil, without the power to avoid it." Bible Com., 1 : 40— The tree of life was 
symbol of the fact that " life is to be sought, not from within, from himself, in his own 
powers or faculties ; but from that which is without him, even from him who hath life 
in lilmself." 

As the water of baptism and the bread of the Lord's supper, though themselves com- 
mon things, are symbolic of the greatest truths, so the tree of knowledge and the tree 
of life were sacramentaL Mcllvaine, Wisdom of Holy Scripture, 99-141— "The two 
trees represented good and evil. The prohibition of the latter was a declaration that 
man of himself oould not distinguish between good and evil, and must trust divine 
guidance. Satan urged man to discern between good and evil by his own wisdom, and 
so become independent of Gk)d. Sin is the attempt of the creature to exercise God's 
attribute of discerning and choosing between good and evil by his own wisdom. It is 
therefore self-conceit, self -trust, self-assertion, the preference of his own wisdom and 
will to the wisdom and will of God." Mcllvaine refers to Lord Bacon, Works, 1 : 82, 
16:2. See also Pope, Theology, 2 : 10, 11 ; Boston Lectures for 1871 : 80, 81. 

Griffith-Jones, Ascent through Christ, 142, on the tree of the knowledge of good and 
evil—** When for the first time man stood face to face with definite oonsdous tempta- 
tion to do that which he knew to be wrong, he held in his hand the fruit of that tree, 
and his destiny as a moral being hung trembling in the balance. And when for the 
first time he succumbed to temptation and faint dawnings of remorse visited his heart, 
at that moment he was banished from the Eden of innocence, in which his nature had 
hitherto dwelt, and he was driven forth from the presence of the Lord." With the first 
sin, was started another and a downward course of development. For the mythical or 
allegorical explanation of the narrative, see also Hase, Hutterus Redivlvus, 164, 16St 
and Nitz?ch, Christian Doctrine, 218. 



584 AKTHBOPOLOGY, OB THE DOGTBIKE OF UAIX. 

2. The course of the temptcUion, and the resulting falL 

The stages of the temptation appear to have been as follows : 

( a ) An appeal on the part of Satan to innocent appetites, together with 
an impHed suggestion that God was arbitrarily withholding the means of 
their gratification ( Qen, 3:1). The first sin was in Eve's isolating herself 
and choosing to seek her own pleasure without regard to Gk>d*s wiU. This 
initial selfishness it was, which led her to listen to the tempter instead of 
rebuking him or flying from him, and to exaggerate the divine command 
in her response ( Gen« 3:3). 

OeB. 8 : 1—"Tm, hath 6od laid, Ta ihall not ettof aoj tree of tha gardan?*' Satan emphasizes the 7(m(- 
tatlcn^ but is silent with regard to the grenerous perm U»Um — *' Of arary traa of the garden [but 
one] thoamajeetfMyeat" (2:16). C. H.M., in loco: *' To admit the question 'hath God laid?* 
is already positive infidelity. To add to Ood's word is as bad as to take from it. 'Bath 
Qodaaid?' is quickly followed by 'Taahall not mrelj die^* Questioning whether God has 
spoken, results in open contradlotion of what God has said. Eve suffered God's word 
to be contradicted by a creature, only because she had abjured its authority over her 
conscience and heart." The command was simply : "thon ihalt not eat of it "( Gen. 2 : 17 ). In 
her rising dislike to the authority she had renounced, she exaggerates the command 
Into : " Te ahall not eat of i^ neither ahall je toooh it " ( Gen. 8 : 8 ). Here is already self-isolation, 
instead of love. Mutheson, Messages of the Old Religions, 818—'* Ere ever the human 
soul disobeyed, it had learned to distrust. . . . Before it violated the existing law, it 
had come to think of the Lawgiver as one who was Jealous of his creatures.*' Dr. 
C. H. Parkhurst: **Tho first question ever asked in human history was asked by the 
devil, and the interrogation point still has in it the trail of the serpent." 

( & ) A denial of the veracity of Gk>d, on the part of the tempter, with a 
charge against the Ahnighty of jealousy and fraud in keeping his creatures 
in a position of ignorance and dependence ( Gen. 3 : 4, 5 ). This was fol- 
lowed, on the part of the woman, by positive unbelief, and by a conscious 
and presumptuous cherishing of desire for the forbidden fruit, as a means 
of independence and knowledge. Thus unbelief, pride, and lust all sprang 
from the self -isolating, self-seeking spirit, and fastened upon the means 
of gratifying it ( Q«n. 3:6). 

Gan.8: 4, 5 — "And the aerpantaaid onto thavimiaii,Ta shall not lorelj die: ftr God dotii know that in the day ja 
•at thereat then yoor vjm ahall be opened, and jt ahall be aa God, knowii^ good and otH " ; 3:6— "And whan the 
woman aaw that the tree was good for fiwd, and that it was a deli^^t to the e jea, and that the tree was to bo deaired ta 
make one wia^ aha took of the flroit thereof, and did eat ; and ahe gara also nnto her husband witii her, and he did eat" 
— so ** taking the word of a Professor of Lying, that he docs not lie'* (John Henry 
Newman ). Hooker, Eccl. Polity, book I — ** To live by one man*s will became the 
cause of all men's misery." Oodet on John i :4 — **In the words *lilb* and 'light' it is 
natural to see an allusion to the tree of life and to that of knowledge. After having 
eaten of the former, man would have been called to feed on the second. John initiates 
us into the real essence of these primordial and mysterious facts and gives us in this 
verse, as it were, the philoscphy of Paradise." Obedience is the way to knowledge, and 
the sin of ParadlMc was the seeking of light without life ; cf. John 7 : 17 - "If any man willoth 
to do hia will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak team mjaelL" 

( ) The tempter needed no longer to urge his suit Having poisoned 
the fountain, the stream would naturally be evil. Since the heart and its 
desires had become corrupt, the inward dispositition manifested itself in act 
( Gen. 3:6 — * did eat ; and she gave also imto her husband with her *= who 
had been with her, and had shared her choice and longing ). Thus man 
fell inwardly, before the outward act of eating the forbidden fruit, — fell in 
that one fundamental determination whereby he made supremo choice of 
self instead of God. This sin of the inmost nature gave rise to sins of the 



DIFFICULTIES OOKKECTED WITH THE FALL. 586 

desire^ and sins of the desires led to the outward act of transgression 
(James 1 : 15 ). 

J&am 1 : 15— " ThMi the lull vboi it hatk ooooeiTad, Imnth dn.'* Baird, Elohim Revealed, 888— 
** The law of God had already been violated ; man was fallen before the fruit had been 
plucked, or the rebellion had been thus signalized. The law required not only outward 
obedience but fealty of the heart, and this was withdrawn before any outward token 
Indicated the changre.'* Would he part company with Qod, or with his wife ? When 
the Indian asked the missionary where his ancestors wore, and was told that they were 
in hell, he replied that he would go with his ancestors. He preferred hell with his tribe 
to heaven with God. Sapphira, in like manner, had opportunity given her to part 
company with her husband, but she preferred him to God ; lets 5 : 7-lt 

Philippi, Glaubenslehre : ** So man became like God, a setter of law to himself. 
Man's self -elevation to godhood was his falL God*8 self-humiliation to manhood was 
man's restoration and elevation. . . . Gw. 8 : 22 — ' The maa hu baeome as on* of u ' in his condi- 
tion of self -centered activity,— thereby losing all real likeness to God, which consists in 
having the same aim with God himself. De U fdbula narratur ; it is the condition, not 
of one alone, but of all the race.'* Sin once brought into being is self-propagating ; 
its seed is in itself: the centuries of misery and crime that have followed have only 
shown what endless possibilities of evil were wrapped up in that single sin. Keble : 
** 'T was but a little drop of sin We saw this morning enter in, And lo, at eventide a 
world is drowned I *' Farrar, Fall of Man : ** The guilty wish of one woman has swol- 
len into the irremediable corruption of a world." See .Oehler, O. T. Theology, 1 : 831 ; 
MUller, Doct. Sin, 2 : 881-^86 : Edwards, on Original Sin, part 4, chap. 2; Shedd, Dogm. 
Theol., 2 : 168-180. 

II. DiFFIOULTIES OONNEOTED WITH THE FaLIi GONSmEBED AS THE PEB- 

soNAii Act of Adam. 

1. How could a Jioly being fall f 

Here we mnst acknowledge that we cannot understand how the first 
nnholy emotion could have found lodgment in a mind that was set 
supremely upon God, nor how temx)tation could have overcome a soul in 
which there were no nnholy propensities to which it could appeaL The 
mere power of choice does not explain the fact of an unholy choice. The 
fact of natural desire for sensuous and intellectual gratification does not 
explain how tliis desire came to be inordinate. Nor does it throw light 
upon the matter, to resolve this fall into a deception of our first parents by 
Satan. Their yielding to such deception presupposes distrust of God and 
alienation from him. Satan's fall, moreover, since it must have been 
uncaused by temptation from without, is more difficult to explain than 
Adam's fall. 

Wo may distinguish six incorrect explanations of the origin of sin : 1. Emmons : Sin 
is due to God's eOleicncy — God wrought the sin in man's heart. This is the ^^ exorcise 
system," and is essentially pantheistic. 2. Edwards: Sin is duo to God's providence — 
God caused the sin indirectly by presenting motives. This explanation has all the 
difficulties of determinism. 8. Augustine : Sin is the result of God*s withdrawal from 
man's souL But inevitable sin is not sin, and the blame of it rests on God who with- 
drew the grace needed for obedience. 4. Pfleiderer : The fall results from man's already 
existing sinfulness. The fault then belongs, not to man, but to God who made man 
sinful. 6. Hodley : Sin is due to man's moral insanity. But such concreated ethical 
defect would render sin impossible. Insanity is the effect of sin, but not its cause. 8. 
Newman : Sin is due to man's weakness. It is a negative, not a positive, thing, an 
incident of flnitencss. But conscience and Scripture testify that it is positive as well as 
negative, opposition to God as well as non-conformity to God. 

Emmons was really a pantheist: ^^ Since God," he says, *^ works in all men both to 
will and to do of his good pleasure, it is as easy to account for the first offence of Adam 
as for any other sin. . • • . There is no difficulty respecting the fall of Adam from hif 



586 ANTHROPOLOGY, OR THE DOCTRIXE OF 

origrlnal state of peifecCionaiid puiitr into a itate of sin and gtiOU wliicfa to in mj- 
peculiar. .... It is as consistent vith the m>>rml rectitude of the Deitj to produoe 
sinful as holy exercises in the minds of men. He puts forth a positive inflnenoe to 
make moral agents act, in ererr instance of their conduct, as lie pleMea. .... Tbeie 
is but one satisfactory answer to the question IThtnct camt erU i and that Is : It wwMt 
from the great flxvt Oiuse of all things " ; see Nathaniel P-mmnTMi, Works, S : 483. 

Jonathan Edwards also denied power to the oontiwy even in Adam's llrvt sin. God 
did not immediately cause that sin. But God was active in the region of motiTea 
though his action was not seen. Freedom of the wai, 161— ''It was fitting that the 
transaction should so take place that it might not appear to be from God as tbeappaient 
fountain.'* Yet ** God may actually in his providence so dispose and permit things that 
the event may be certainly and infallibly connected with such disposal and permtaaion **; 
see Allen, Jonathan Edwaxds, 304. Encyc. Britannica, litBO—"" According to Edwar^ 
Adam had two principles.— natural and supematuraL When Adam sinned, the super- 
natural or di\^e principle was withdrawn from him, and thus his nature became corw 
rupt without God infusing any evil thing into it. His posterity came into being* 
entirely under the government of natural and inferior principles. But this aolvea 
the difficulty of making God the author of sio only at the expense of denying to sin 
any real existence, and also destroys Edwards's essential distinction between natural 
and moral ability." Edwards on Trinity, Fisher's edition, 44— -The sun does not 
cause darkness and cold, when these follow infallibly upon the withdrawal of his beams. 
God's disposing the result is not a positive exertion on his part.'* Shedd, Dogm. TheoL, 
2 : 50— ** God did not withdraw the common supporting grace of his Spirit from Adam 
until after transgression." To us Adam's act was IrrationaL but not impossible ; to a 
dcti^rminist like Edwards, who held that men simply act out their characters, Adam's 
act should have been not only irrational, but impoasible. Edwards nowhere shows 
how, according to his principles, a holy being could possibly falL 

Pfleiderer, Grundrias, 123— "The account of the fall is the first appearance of an 
already existing sinfulness, and a typical example of the way in which every individual 
becomes sinful. Original sin is simply the universality and originality of sin. There is 
no such thing as Indetcrminism. The will can lift itself from natural unfreedom, the 
unf rcedom of the natural impulses, to real spiritual freedom, only by distinguishing 
itself from the law which sets before it its true end of being. The opposition of nature 
to the law reveals an original nature power which precedes all free self-determination. 
Sin is the evil bent of lawless self-willed selfishness." Pfleiderer appears to make this 
sinfulness concreated, and guiltless, because proceeding from God. Hill, Genetio 
Philosophy, 288 — " The wide discrepancy between precept and practice gives rise to the 
theological conception of sin, which, in low types of religion, is as often a violation of 
some trivial prescription as it is of an ethical principle. The presence of sin, contrastcsd 
with a state of innocence, occasions the idea of a fall, or lapse from a sinless condition. 
This is not incompatible with man's derivation from an animal ancestry, which prior 
to the riso of self-consciousness may be regarded as having been in a state of moral 

innocence^ the sense and reality of sin being impossible to the animal The exists 

encc of sin, both as an inherent disposition, and as a perverted form of action, may be 
explained as a sur\'ival of animal propensity in human life. .... Sin is the disturbance 
of higher life by the intrusion of lower." 

Professor James Hadley: "Every man is more or less insane.'* We prefer to say : 
Every man, so far as he is apart from God, is morally insane. But we must not make 
sin the result of insanity. Insanity is the result of sin. Insanity, moreover, is a physical 
disease,— sin is a perversion of the will. John Henry Newman, Idea of a Uni\-ersity, 
60 — *' Evil has no sulwtanco of its own, but is only the defect, excess, perversion or 
corruption of that which has sul)8tance." Augustine seems at times to favor this view. 
Ho maintains that evil has no origin, inasmuch as it is negative, not positive; that it is 
merely defect or failure. Ho illustrates it by the damaged state of a dLncordant harp ; 
see Moulo, Outlines of Theology, 171. So too A. A. Hodge, Popular LcKitures, 190, tells 
us that Adam's will was like a violin in tune, which through mere inattention and 
neglect got out of tune ut laHt. But hero, too, we must say with E. G. Robinson, Christ. 
Theology, 124 — ** Sin oxplainiHl is sin dofende<l.'* All those explanations fail to explain, 
and throw tho blame of sin upon (jk>d, as directly or indirectly its cause. 

But Bin in an existing fact. God cannot be its author, either by creating 
man's nature so that sin was a necessary incident of its development, or by 
withdrawing a su|>ematural grace which was necessary to keep man holy. 




DIFFICULTIES CONNECTED WITH THE FALL. 587 

Beason, therefore, has no other reooorse than to accept the Scriptnre doc- 
trine that sin originated in man's free act of revolt from God — the act of 
a will which, though inclined toward God, was not yet confirmed in virtue 
and was still capable of a contrary choice. The original possession of such 
power to the contrary seems to be the necessary condition of probation 
and moral development. Yet the exercise of this power in a sinful direction 
can never be explained upon grounds of reason, since sin is essentially 
unreason. It is an act of wicked arbitrariness, the only motive of which 
is the desire to depart from God and to render self supreme. 

Sin is a " myitery of l&wleMnan " ( 2 Thm. 8 : 7 ), at the beffiniiiii£r« as well as at the end. Nean- 
der, PlantiDflr and Traininflr, 388— " Whoever explains sin nullifies it.** Man's power at 
the beginning' to choose evil does not prove that, now that he has fallen, he has equal 
power of himself perm^ently to choose good. Because man has power to cast him- 
self from the top of a precipice to the bottom, it does not follow that he has equal 
power to transport himself from the bottom to the top. 

Man fell by wilful resistance to the inworking Ood. Christ is in all men as he was in 
Adam, and all good impulses are due to him. Since the Holy Spirit is the Christ within, 
all men are the subjects of his striving. He does not withdraw from them except upon , 
and in consequence of, their withdrawing from him. John Milton makes the Almighty 
say of Adam's sin : '* Whose fault ? Whose but his own ? Ingrate, he had of me All he 
could have ; I made him Just and right, Sufflcient to have stood, though free to fall. 
Such I created all the Etherial Powers, And Spirits, both them who stood and them 
who failed ; Freely they stood who stood, and fell who failed.** The word " oussednees *' 
has become an apt word here. The Standard Dictionary defines it as **1. CursednesB, 
meanness, perverseness; 2. resolute courage, endurance: *Jim Bludsoe's voice was 
heard, And they all had trust in his cussedness And knowed he would keep his word.' " 
(John Hay, Jim filudsoe, stanza 6 ). Not the last, but the first, of these definitions best 
describes the first sin. The most thorough and satisfactory treatment of the fall of 
man in connection with the doctrine of evolution is found in Griffith-Jones, Ascent 
through Christ, 73-240. 

Hodge, EssajTS and Reviews, 30—'* There is a broad difference between the commence- 
ment of holiness and the commencement of sin, and more is necessary for the former 
than for the latter. An act of obedience, if it is performed under the mere impulse of 
self-love, is virtually no act of obedience. It is not performed with any intention to 
obey, for that is holy, and cannot, according to the theory, precede the act. But an act 
of disobedience, performed from the desire of happiness, is rebellion. The cases are 
surely different. If, to please myself, I do what Qod commands, it is not holiness ; but 
if, to please myself, I do what he forbids. It is sin. Besides, no creature is immutable. 
Though created holy, the taste for holy enjoyments may be overcome by a temptation 
sufficiently insidious and powerful, and a selfish motive or feeling excited in the mind. 
Neither is a sinful character immutable. By the power of the Holy Spirit, the truth 
may be clearly presented and so effectually applied as to produce that change which is 
called regeneration ; that is, to call into existence a taste for holiness, so that It is 
chosen for its own sake, and not as a means of happiness." 

H. B. Smith, System, 282— '* The state of the case, as far as we can enter into Adam's 
experience, is this: Before the command, there was the state of love without the 
thought of the opposite : a knowledge of good only, a yet unconscious goodness : there 
was also the knowledge that the eating of the fruit was against the divine command. 
The temptation aroused pride : the yielding to that was the sin. The change was there. 
The change was not in the choice as an executive act, nor in the result of that act— the 
eating ; but in the choice of supreme love to the world and self, rather than supreme 
devotion to God. It was an Immanent preference of the world,— not a love of the 
world following the choice, but a love of the world which is the choice itself.*' 

263—** We cannot account for Adam's fall, psychologically. In saying this we mean : 
It is inexplicable by anything outside Itself. We must receive the fact as ultimate, and 
rest there. Of course we do not mean that it was not in accordance with the laws of 
moral agency — that it was a violation of those laws : but only that we do not see the 
mode, that we cannot construct it for ourselves in a rational way. It differs from all 
other similar cases of ultimate preference which we know; viz., the sinner's immanent 
preference of the world, where we know there is an antecedent ground in the bias to 



sncvi--^ ia TEi iw.^imj: tF 




^AfS * V r I* 1^ 
imr 

jTi^X M. <«^ « i^marrir t. -^ M«t ■!£ icr frr-'j 

1^ iiflM MJ( t»! 



1. /<vi« 'x^i^ 'Vyc /<-^:/ >B^»i.- .5irTn<*f vmxpar* n.f 
^^ti^vvi^i m'lim f^ 'A0^ V >r> VfniTTat-t mil 'xf*7- f -tl. a* tutuxe ■-"-" ^okzl snaec under 

*ij'/« w'/'^i/J iMcr^!; /.'.cMi/b z:uK£. hiz:j^^ & SttiiZ. 



te '^ IK — ' 44 anarf tfb ««« Iul* "'^^^l ;«snL-r'Jif! sct«= :•? £Ti5e tbt ra2x 
Umif04, fiiJjt, *4 u^ ^0*0^^'^ Vin—^ Wbj wM jyx tot tjiw r=A^ > ,:w* rilT rE7CliiT»? 

<^ ; Ait, t/i Ufi; /y/Tj/li/H with t#;mpUticm, it is an ailvantaee to objectifr 
«ryil ut4fUrr U$*'. UitM^o. </f fy/mij/tihl': flenL, so it is an advantage to meet it 
M *',tttSt*t*\Uyi\ in a jMinfftuk] au/l i^^lncing ejjirit. 

If«r<'« f^/^}r, f/,fnit^lhU: tuA fMTrlffhahk; M }t iff. fumifltMS him with an fUattradoii and 
ptitoUffUif 'tf tkti: 'y/ff'»ti'/ri '/f wtul U» vrhicb iHn has r«.-4uo€«l him. The flesh, with its 
>^«««/ii tm mM f/M}rM, l« thija, unAtrt C,rA^ a h«:lp t/> the dLftinct re^ifmition and ovcrcom- 
Um **f n\h. K«/ If. wun Ml aulvantaiff? to man to ha%'e U'mptatifjr. -on fined to a single 
nMUtt tm\ viAit'.. W«f ma r aay of ttK; Iriflu'rnc; of the tempter, as Birks, in his Difficulties 
iff lU'tu t, f/»l, Myii </f tiifr IrM; of th<} lcrjoirlf.''lire of grxid and eril: ''Temptation did 
h*ii »U\t* r*/l ij|f ffi Mmi tr««). T<wiptiitlon vras oertain in any e%'ent. The true was a tjpe 
Ifito ¥iUuU litHi lUHitrmtiUi^ th<r (HMMllfllltkas of evil, so as to strip them of delusive vast- 
rM4M. Ni*4l furfiiKffft tJM'm itIUi difflniti) and |jalpable waminflrt— toshow man that it was 
ofilir oiiii Iff Mmi ifiaiiy iKMMlbU* a«!il vltlfM of his iplrit which was forbidden, that God had 
iltfliL 1*1 all uiut mntUt forliid nil." The oriffinallty of sin was the most fascinating 
«>l<iiiii<fii 111 If. 11 affffnlfid iKiuridhiw ranfco for the Imairination. Luther did well to 
OiMiw Ills IfiHstHri'l nl Uin diivll. It was an a«lvantairo to localize him. The oonoentra- 
Hull Iff I Iki liiiirinri powiTH ti\Hm n deflnltii offer of evil helps our understandingr of the 
nvll Mild liMi|-tmiw« «»iir dlaiMMltloii <o r*m\ni it. 

( // ) Hiinli iiuii|)iiiiloii hiiH ill itwtlf no ttmdonoy to lead tho sonlafitraj. If 



DIFFICULTIES CONKECTED WITH THE FALL, 589 

the soul be holy, temptation may only confirm it in virtue. Only the evil will, 
self-determined against Gk)d, can turn temptation into an occasion of ruin. 

As the sun's heat has no tendency to wither the plant rooted in deep and moist soil, 
but only oauses it to send down its roots the deeper and to fasten itself the more 
strongly, so temptation has in itself no tendency to pervert the souL It was only the 
seeds thafbll upon the roekj pliMi; when th«7 bad not aniah wcth** (lUtkl3:8^6>, that "vwt MoralMd" 
when "the son vas riaen " ; and our Lord attoributes their failure, not to the sun, but to their 
lackof rootandof soil:"beeaiiaethe7badiwroe^*"'beoaiiaetbe7hadikodeepieaofeartL" The same 
temptation which occasions the ruin of the false disciple stimulates to sturdy growth 
the virtue of the true Christian. Contrast with the temptation of Adam the tempta- 
tion of Christ. Adam had everything to plead for Ck>d, the garden and its delights, 
while Christ had everything to plead against him, the wildemess and its privations. 
But Adam had confidence in Satan, while Christ had confidence in Ood ; and the result 
was in the former case defeat, in the latter victory. See Baird, Elohlm Revealed, 886-396. 

C. H. Spurgeon : ** All the sea outside a ship can do it no damage tUl the water enters 
and fills the hold. Hence, it is clear, our greatest danger is within. All the devils in 
hell and tempters on earth could do us no injury, if there were no corruption in our own 
natures. The sparks will fly harmlessly, if there is no tinder. Alas, our heart is our 
greatest enemy ; this is the little home-bom thief. Lord, save me from that evil man, 
myself I " 

Lyman Abbott: "The scorn of goody-goody is Justified; for goody-goody isinnooence, 
not virtue ; and the boy who never does anything wrong because he never does any- 
thing at all is of no use in the world Sin is not a help in development; it is a 

hindrance. But temptation is a help ; it Is an indispensable means.** B. G. Bobinson, 
Christ. Theology, 128— ** Temptation in the bad sense and a fall from Innocence were 
no more necessary to the perfection of the first man, than a marring of any one's char- 
acter is now necessary to its completeness.** John Milton, Areopagitica : " Many there 
be that complain of divine providence for suffering Adam to transgress. ]A>olish 
tongues I When Qod gave him reason, he gave him freedom to choose, for reason Is but 
choosing; ho had been else a mere artificial Adam, such an Adam as he is in the 
motions ** ( puppet shows ). Bobert Browning, Blng and the Book, 204 ( Pope, 1183) — 
** Temptation sharp? Thank Ood a second time I Why comes temptation but for man 
to meet And master and make crouch beneath his foot, And so be pedestaled in 
triumph ? Pray * Lead us into no such temptations. Lord * ? Yea, but, O thou whose 
servants are the bold. Lead such temptations by the head and hair. Reluctant dragons, 
up to who dares fight, That so he may do battle and have praise I 



>t 



8. Sow could a penalty/ 80 grecU he justly connected with diaobedU 
ence to so slight a command f 

To this question we may reply : 

(a) So slight a command presented the best test of the spirit of 

obedience. 

Cicero : *' Parva res est, at magna culpa.** The child's persistent disobedience in one 
single respect to the mother's conunand shows that in all his other acts of seeming 
obedience he does nothing for his mother's sake, but all for his own, — sliows, in other 
words, that he does not possess the spirit of of obedience in a single act. 8. S. Times : 
*' Trifles are trifles only to triflers. Awake to the significance of the insignificant I for 
you are in a world that belongs not alone to the Ck>d of the infinite, but also to the God 
of the InflnitesimaL*' 

(b) The external command was not arbitrary or insignificant in its sab- 
stanca It was a concrete presentation to the human will of Cbd's n^tum 
to eminent domain or absolute ownership. 

John Hall, Lectures on the Behgious Use of Property, 10— " It somethnes happens 
that owners of land, meaning to give the use of it to others, without alienating it, 
Impose a nominal rent— a quit-rent, the passing of which acknowledges the recipient 
as owner and the occupier as tenant. This is understood in all lands. In many an old 
English deed, ' three barley-ooros,' 'a fat capon,* or * a shilllog/ is the ^TwMfffatlop 



590 AXTHBOP0L06T, OR THE DOCTRDrX OF ILLS. 



witif,^ l^iramn^iotlT r*rf^moate§ the rfgliti of kfrlsliipu God tmuglkt nen bj Ae Coriiid- 
tifrff \n^ %UMt iM; vaM owufsr^ thtX nuuD vtm 'jccufifer. He rti^ted tht nurcer of pntf^ 
fTtjr u> tA tJM; Ui«t <^/f Bum'ii 'Ajfaiikayx^ the oatwmrd awl KOflbleifrn of a rigbt ftst» cf 
iMirt Uywarl Oo4; wyl wbeo nun put fortli faii hand And did eu, he denied God^ 
ovo«nlifp«iidftMt!rt<94hliowa. KciChiiiff remained but to eject him.'* 



ignriEuit of its nmuiing or importauoe. 



taLt:0~''iite4>7ftiftAn«tatth««r;h«*i2tHiiCjfii:'' CY. €ia S:3~'lte««vteA3siate 
■)4liflhipH«'':aadfr3e Uod«<F;,Cl]iiBtianTbec>logT«9K.ai:— ''ThetreewMccntnLaB 
ih«: ooramandm«,-ot was oeotraL The chok-e was beCireen the tnc of life and the tree 
of desUi,^betireeoaetfaDdGod. Taldnir the one was r^Jectio^ the other."^ 




(d) The md of diaobedienoe was therefore the zevelation of « will tfaor* 
ang}il J oormiited and alienated from God — a will given over to ingratitode^ 
nnbelief, ambition, and rebellion. 

The motfre to dlar>bedlenoe waa not appetite, but the ambitioa to be as God. The 
cmtward act of eatinir the forbidden fruit was only tlie thin edge of the wedge, behind 
which luT the whole maM — the fui»damental determination to isolate self and to seek 
perwmal pleasure regardless of Q<mI and his law. So the man under oonviction for sin 
cjrnm^jnl J clings U} some single passion or plan, only half-conscious of the fact that 
opposition to God In one thing Is opposition in alL 

HL GoVBEQUEMCBSOFTHbFaIiL, 80FABABBE8FBCTS AdaX. 

1. DeaiK — This death was twofold. It was partly : 

A. PLyncal death, or the separation of the sonl from the body. — The 
wjcmIm of distil, naturally implanted in man's constiintiony began to develop 
t)i<!iiiH<;lvcfl the moment that access to the tree of life was denied him. Man 
frrim that moment was a dying creature. 

In a true sfjnse dr.'ath 1>egan at once. To It belonged the pains which both man and 
woirian should suir4;r in their appointed callings. The fact that man's earthly existence 
did not at once end, was due to Gcxl^s counsel of redemption. "Tk* Uw oftkt ^iritof lift ** 
( tarn. 8: S> tjcgan U> wr>rk even then, and grace began to counteract the effects of the 
Fall. Christ has now " iboliihcd dMth " ( 2 Tim. 1 : 10 ) by taking Its terrors away, and by turn* 
Ing it Into the iKirtal of heaven. Ho will destroy It utterly (1 Cor. 15:26) when by rcsur- 
rf<!tlon from the dead, the bodies of the saints shall 1)0 made Immortal. Dr. William A. 
Hammond, following a French scientist, declares that there Is no reason in a normal 
phynicai] system why man should not live forever. 

Tiuii death is not a physical necessity is evident If we onoe remember that life Is, not 
fuel, but tiw, Weismann, Heredity, 8, 24, 72, 159— ** The organism must not be looked 
ii|Km us a h(Ap of (combustible material, which is completely rvduood to ashes in a 
cfTtiiin tline» the length of which Is detorminod by its size and by the rate at which it 
bunis; but It should bo comimrod to a fire, to which fresh fuel can bo continually 
aildtMl, and which, whether it bums quickly or slowly, can be kept burning as long as 
niMMfwity demands. • . • . Death Is not a primary necessity, but It has been acquired 

■ecoiiilarlly, as un ailaptation Unicellular organisms. Increasing by means of 

llfwion, in a certain sense possess immortality. No Amcelia has over lost an ancestor 

by dentil Each individual now living is far older than mankind, and Is almost as 

old ntk life itself Dctath is not an essential attribute of living matter." 

If we n«gard man as primarily spirit, the possibility of life without death is plain. 
(1(n1 lives on eternally, and tho future physical organism of the righteous will have In 
It no huinI of d(*uth. Man might have been created without being mortaL That he Is 
inortnl is duo to iiiitiolpatod sin. lU^ganl body as simply the constant energizing of God, 
and we HOC that thero Is no Inherent necessltjr of death. Denncy, Studies in Theology, 
fM - ** Man, it is said, must die beoause ho Is a natural being, and what belongs to nature 
belongs tohhn. Hut wo assert, on the contrary, that he was created a supernatural 
being, with a primacy over nature, so rolated to Ood as to t)0 Immortal. Death Is an 
Intrutton, and It Is Analbr to bo abolished.** Chandler, The Spirit of Man, 45-47— ''The 



C0N8EQCEKCES OF THE FALL. 591 

flnt stage in the fall was the dislnteffration of spirit into body and mind ; and the sec- 
ond was the enslavement of mind to body.*' 

Some recent writers, however, deny that death is a consequence of the Fall, except 
in the sense that man's fear of death results from his sin. Newman Smyth, Place of 
Death in Evolution, 19-2S, indeed, asserts the value and propriety of death as an element 
of the normal universe. He would oppose to the doctrine of Weismann the conclusions 
of Maupas, the French biologist, who has followed infusoria through 600 generations. 
Fission, says Maupas, reproduces for many generations, but the unicellular germ ulti- 
mately weakens and dies out. The asexual reproduction must be supplemented by a 
higher conjugation, the meeting and partial blending of the contents of two cells. This 
is only occasional, but it is necessary to the permanence of the species. Isolation is 
ultimate death. Newman Smyth adds that death and sex appear together. When sex 
enters to enrich and diversify life, all that will not take advantage of it dies out. 
Survival of the fittest is accompanied by death of that which will not improve. Death 
is a secondary thing — a consequence of life. A living form acquired the power of 
giving up its life for another. It died in order that its offspring might survive In a 
higher form. Death helps life on and up. It does not put a stop to Uf^ It became an 
advantage to life as a whole that certain p^mitive forms should be left by the way to 
perish. We owe our human birth to death In nature. The earth before us has died 
that we might live. We are the living children of a world that has died for us. Death 
is a means of life, of increasing specialization of function. Some cells are bom to give 
up their life sacriflcially for the organism to which they belong. 

While we regard Newman Smyth's view as an ingenious and valuable explanation of 
the incidental results of death, we do not regard it as an explanation of death's origin. 
God has overruled death for good, and we can assent to much of Dr. Smyth's exposition. 
But that this good could be gained only by death seems to us wholly unproved and 
unprovable. Biology shows us that other methods of reproduction are possible, and 
that death is an incident and not a primary requisite to development. We regard Dr. 
Smyth's theory as incompatible with the Scripture representations of death as the con- 
sequence of sin, as the sign of God's displeasure, as a means of discipline for the f&llen, 
as destined to complete abolition when sin itself has been done away. We reserve, how- 
ever, the full proof that phjrsical death is part of the penalty of sin until we disonss the 
Consequences of Sin to Adam's Posterity. 

Bnt this death was also, and chiefly, 

B. Spiritual death, or the separation of the sonl from God. — In this 
are included : ( a ) Negatively, the loss of man's moral likeness to God, or 
that underlying tendency of his whole nature toward Gk>d which constitated 
his original righteousness. (6) Positively, the depraving of all those 
powers which, in their nnited action with reference to moral and religions 
truth, we call man's moral and religions nature ; or, in other words, the 
blinding of his intellect, the corruption of his affections, and the enslave- 
ment of his wilL 

Seeking to be a god, man became a slave ; seeking independence, he ceased to be 
master of himself. Once his intellect was pure, — he was supremely conscious of God, 
and Huw all things cli«o in God's light. Now he was supremely conscious of self, and saw 
all things as they affected self. This self-consciousness — how unlike the objective life 
of the Urst apcjstles, of Christ, and of every loving soul I Once man's affections were 
pure, — ho loved God supremely, and other things in subordination to God's will. Now 
he loved self supremely, and was ruled by inordinate affections toward the creatures 
which could minister to his selfish gratification. Now man could do nothing pleasing 
to Gcxl, because he lacked the love which is necessary to all true obedience. 

G. F. Wilkin, Control in Bvolution, shows that the will may initiate a counter-evolu- 
tion which sliall reverse the normal course of man's development. First comes an act, 
then a habit, of surrender to an ima l i s m ; then subversion of faith in the true and the 
good ; then active championship of evil ; then transmission of evil disposition and 
tendencies to posterity. This subversion of the rational will by an evil choice took 
place very early, indeed in the first man. All human history has been a conflict 
between these two antagonistio evolutions, the upward and the downward. Biologi- 
cal rather than moral phenamena predominate. No human being escapes tranagxeos- 



592 ASTHBOPOLOGT. OR THE DOCTRCrE OF XAJT. 



tzur tlw: }kw fit Ug evTiiutirmMTj omxut^. TIwtv S« a motal I iIiiimiimIUbiiiw iwiltlm. 
TV; nmr^nai w: J rr.wfa r<- rvstr re«2 t«f -^re isaa can go nir^K ikgahim Xm most oomBlt 
hinwwrif toatrueLfe: thenio the reatorastoo of other Memo that wme life; thenUme 
nnuft tor coQ[K»axion of sciciitf 7 : thto work muBt extend to the Umlta of the human 
•|)f3Ctai. BatthJswlUto-practHsbleaDdratMoaloiilraiitlsriiownthattheiiiiftoldii^ 
ffUui of the nnlrene haadeRiiM^ the i1ghteoa» to a f iitoze iiKX>mpaiahij m^ 
than that of the w&cfced ; in other words, immortality is mn—ij to erolntJoo. 

" If iomrxtalitr be nfnwry to erohitioa, then tmmortaittr beoomea BcJuutlHai 
Jinin has the anthoritr and omnipresence of tlie power behind crolntion. He impoas 
upffu hJs foUowera the aune normal erolntionarT mxaion that sent him into tiie 
world. He organizu them Into churcfaea. He teaches a moral erolntion of societj 
thrtftiifh Uie onit^d rcriuntary eff^>m of his followers. Thej are 'A* fiii mi .... teaas 
if UA iLrfi-A* r bL 0:% ). Tbebm makes a definite attempt to ooonteracC the evil of the 
oftu rit/-r-«:volutlon, and the attempt JustUles itaelf hy its zesuha. Chrtsdanit y is sden- 
tlila <\) in that it aatisfiea the conditions of ktuf^citdQe : the peiaistinff and oompie- 
heri^ir^ liarraony rif phenomena, and the interpretation of aU tlie facts: (2) in its ala^ 
th«; rnr/ral mreoeratlon of the world ; ( 3 ) in its m^lkois. adapting itaelf to man as an 
«it\ilfml IMng. capable of endJess progress : ( 4 ) in its conception of normal ancietu, 9B 
of fiinnen uniting Unn'tber to help one another to depend on God and conquer self, so 
rtztrtufiilzlng the 4.-lhlcal bond as the m^jst essentiaL This doctrine harmonises sdenoe 
and r^ligirm, n:vealinflr the new speciea of control which marks the highest stage of 
«; volution : Ahows that the religion of the N. T. is esse ntially scientiflc and its truths 
r^afKibkr of prttcti'^al verification : that Christianity is not any particular diurch, bat 
th<; t4«chiDg9 of the Bible ; that Christianity is the true system of ethics, and sliould be 
taiifrht in public institutions: that co«mic evolution comes at last to depetid on the 
wisdom and will of man, the immanent God working in finite and redeemed humanity.'* 

In fine, man no longer made Qod the end of his life, but chose self 
InHt^'juL Wliile be retained the power of self-determination in subordinate 
thifi^ he loKt tliat freedom wliich consisted in the power of choosing Gk>d 
ofi his ultimate aim, and l)ecame fettered by a fondamental inclination of 
his will toward eviL The intuitions of the reason were abnormally 
oliHcunril, Hiuce thesc> intuitions, so fur as thej are concerned with moral and 
religious truth, arc conditioned u]X)n a right state of the affections; and — 
as a necessary result of this obscuring of reason — conscience, which, as 
the normal judiciary of the soul, decides upon the basis of the law given to 
it by ream>n, became iierverse in its deliverances. Yet this inability to judge 
or act aright, since it was a moral inability springing ultimately from will, 
was itself hateful and condemnable. 

fityb Philippi, Glaubonslcbre, 3 : 61-73; Shedd, Sermons to the Natural Man, 90i-2aO, 
fjsp. '^fKi—** Whatsfx;ver si>iing8 from will wc are responsible for. Man's inability to 
lov<;(jOf] supremely rveults from his intense self-will and self-love, and therefore his 
iiii|H>ten(9e Is a i>art and clement of his sin, and not an excuse for it." And yet the 
quiMlion "Adam, wken art thoa? " ( Gen. 8 : 9 ), says 0. J. Baldwin, ** was, (Da question, not as 
U> Adam's phyHlcal locality, but as to his moral condition : ( 2 ) a question, not of Justioe 
thn!at4;ninK« but of love invitinflr to repentance and return ; ( 3 ) a question, not to Adam 
HH Hfi liidlvlduul only, but to tho whole humanity of which he was the representative." 

I)ul<s Eph«44laim, 40 — " Christ is the eternal Son of Qod ; and it was the first, the prim- 
(!Vfil \mr]Hmn of tho divine flrraco that his life and sonship should be shared by all man- 
ic i lid ; that thniuiph CJlirlst all men should rise to a loftier rank than that which belonged 
U) tlMjm by their creation ; should be ' partaktn of the dirine lutare ' ( 2 Pet 1 : 4 ), and share the 
dl vliiij rlKht<M)U«n«»8« and joy. Or rather, the race was actually created in Christ ; and 
it wnM c^n'titod that tho whole race miffht in Christ inherit the life and urlory of God. 
Tho dlvlno imr\xmi has l><>cn thwarted and obstructed and partially defeated by human 
Bin. IlutitlHl)oinirfuinilcdinallwhoaro'inChrist* (Iph.i:3)." 

2. PosUivi) and formal excluHonfrom OocTs presence, — This included : 
( a ) Tho cessation of man's former familiar intercourse with God, and 



IMPUTATION OF ADAK'S SIN TO HIS POSTERITY. 693 

the setting up of outward barriers between man and his Maker (chembim 
and sacrifice ). 



t» 



In die Welt hinauBgeBtoflBen, Stehtder Mensoh verlaasen da.*' Though Ood punished 
Adam and Eve, he did not curse them as he did the serpent. Their exclusion from the 
tree of life was a matter of benevolence as well as of justice, for It pxevented the 
immortality of sin. 

( & ) Banishment from the garden, where €k>d had specially manifested 
his presence. — Eden was perhaps a spot reserved, as Adam's body had 
been, to show what a sinless world would be. This poeitive exclusion from 
God's presence, with the sorrow and pain which it involved, maj have been 
intended to illustrate to man the nature of that eternal death from which 
he now needed to seek deliverance. 

At the gates of Eden, there seems to have been a maniftetation of God's pteeence, in 
the cherubiia, which constituted the place a sanctuary. Both Cain and Abel brought 
offerings " nnto the Lord '* ( Gen. 4 : 3, 4 ), and when Cain fled, he is said to have gone out " fnm 
tltf prsienM of the Lord '* ( Gen. 4 : 16 ). On the consequences of the VaR to Adam, see Edwards, 
Works, 2 : 300-405 ; Hopkins, Works, 1 : 20&-S46 ; Dwight, Theology, 1 : 898-134 ; Watson, 
Institutes, 2: 19-43; liartensen. Dogmatics, 15&-173 ; Van Oosterzee, Dogmatics, 400-412. 



SECTION V. — IMPUTATION OF ADAM'S SIN TO HIS POSTBBITY, 

We have seen that all mankind are sinners ; that all men are by natnre 
depraved, guilty, and condemnable ; and that the transgression of our first 
parents, so far as respects the human race, was the first sin. We have still 
to consider the connection between Adam's sin and the depravity, goilt^ 
and condemnation of the race. 

( a ) The Scriptures teach that the transgression of onr first parents con- 
stituted their posterity sinners (Eom. 5:19 — "through the one man's 
disobedience the many were made sinners " ), so that Adam's sin is imputed, 
reckoned, or charged to every member of the race of which he was the germ 
and head ( Bom. 5 : 16 — ** the judgment came of one [ offence ] nnto con- 
demnation " ). It is because of Adam's sin that we are bom depraved and 
subject to God's penal inflictions (Bom. 5 :12 — "through one man sin 
entered into the world, and death through sin " ; Eph. 2:8 — "by nature 
children of wrath " ). Two questions demand answer, — first, how we can 
be responsible for a depraved nature which we did not personally and con- 
sciously originate ; and, secondly, how God can justly charge to our 
account the sin of the first father of the race. These questions are sub- 
stantially the same, and the Scriptures intimate the true answer to the 
problem when they declare that "in Adam all die" (1 Cor. 15 :22) and 
" that death passed unto all men, for that all sinned " when "through one 
man sin entered into the world " ( Bom. 6 : 12 ). In other words, Adam's 
sin is the cause and ground of the depravity, guilt, and condemnation 
of all his posterity, simply because Adam and his iwsterity are one, and, by 
virtue of their organic unity, the sin of Adam is the sin of the race. 

Amiel says that ** the best measure of the profundity of any religious doctrine is given 
by its conception of sin and of the cure of sin.'* Wo have seen that sin is a state ; a 
state of the will ; a selfish state of the will ; a selfish state of the will inborn and uni- 
versal ; a selfish state of the will inborn and universal by reason of man's free act. 

38 



594 AKTHkOpfJl/iGV, OK THE IKKTBIin OF 

CoiitMCtiiu' tb«' |iiv»iMir «ijM-uHHi(yi. will. tb» TirM«»^lixi^ diK*trixM» of 

uur lnjuliii>'ir '.iiu-^ lu' iin a* I'lli'i**-: i. fcii! ^ ii<ii:xj««<4> it jiuriTy of 

iiiv 'ji^iiiuurih purr.i o* iiuMir».. :^. K|| it mipurt uaiun.. 4. Ahmo. tmr^uaM- 

imiurt.. it. A'luii «triirjiiiti*rtJ iiiih x:ii|iiin iiu:urL. Ju itM- pnam x ■aetmi: we ' 

Mijf. : t. xiUiiit. an* v.* un «iim : u'l*.. ii. lit*- HUf«^«'diup flccucm, li iiBiilUBM Ihi 

mui «(-iti : 7 '.I'll* i'u.r. uw. )*''uuj:} d! j^uuii h sii. art oiin. 

^ '• A«-"«j««?'.l!:i:" a^ v » ri';_'u."." ikI- iv.jlfjiJ ]m»'t»ieii. fraxL &£ pcdnx otf 
vt tii* u;'ii').-i:iu i::i:iui f •ir.Li; ]'•!.. -ir 'ji tut- dirmt iTt:ui3iiCiiX of XL wt 




*j'.»L i»? KiL v€ iii*^L.. ij'iT lii*.- ur'tiitruTj uiid mt^ciiiiiiiciij duiz^pizifto a Bum 
(if tijui l'.*r vLi'.'L ii( it WA uuTurulJT r*'s:i(iiiKi:iJt^ lnzt tiie rec^anzzi^ lit a 
uiuL "i b rufti »iii««L ih jir'»j»eriT iiifc vvl.. iiij**tiier 1»t virtxie of bisz 
Tiul bci^-. ur V'T virtu*' ni hia c'nueni'Hi -^^itL tiit thgl. Bt nwipfttal m 
iu(«i: tLut ]iimi'.-i}mtr>L iii tm c iii^in'ii. k:l of the moe "with iriiicL G(ad 
ciiU2V4^ Ub. iL Airtiii ot '.lur u*-'b(.<«L'ii: iroiL Aduzi^ h» first iBther and head. 



▼"< HiiouiL litn p'.-rmi: «>ur um. tif iih icm. 'xmTiuTMtifjzi'U'bc-hinderac orjn^adiivfi 
liv :m lu'*: itm'. •.•fnuJi i»<-ii'.t'uf '•? lue^n'ir:! . u'.iiuli.'v um Fttderul nl'Iicmu. bavc-szimctM^iP 
i: lai a''inini'-; . »-.ri**-iiu.. uii'^ lu^-vUHXjifu. nifruxuxu* — iinidiur tbai Gnd Impnus flinlic* 
iij*'i.. uii: u*"..-uun* ',u*-\ ur*. Kiiiii«*rb. iiiii ui*<il iuk tr^rti:!!!: (tl a IctnL fiRCiiiD 
xkOuii.. v'ltti'iu- *.u>'i' V iii^'iii. wufc xuttiH : livir rciirefv'tiiui'Vf.. 'vrt- gftuiii apt. octhei 
inury. tim: jl : ih ;iu¥: it*. Auau. f b:l ixuT'utK. i' Uiv 1' in iIk- caat- nf cmr 
mipuiA'C i( ''iin<L. uii' ; IT zn* xmi^. •? '"nrir^ t riirtii"nu«rH*9F-i2npu'Uic U'ltatrlielM^rac. 
lii»Tt i^ aiwu^h L r»-a{jiCi' tuiK» ?'i? :!i» :ii :iuuiTi ii.. ijainv.'y. a real unifm. ■ 1 • herwwa 
Auau. uijil iiif- Ui^- VII 'ui I :'>?:. 1' >tvi>«.'l ■ 'uri^. uxil th* ra'«... unc o ■ iHTwttai heJirva 
auL '.'iirun. sij<-i. a^ r-v»« ii •-'a"L uaw t- imii.uiiiTi ii^ hit. unC finabte uf- tP «?' tlittGod 
luiputtt ii ii' luuL V uuT '.J'f* u'l: jjr-'ijM—r 'f.-irmr i ii:n«. 

It. E. Ci. b'liiiusfiL u»***c 11 bLT tliui " :u-.iii;~*'C niruifdUSDc** anfi nnpniiBd alii aiv M 
aliHurti Lu> ai'T xKiTi'ixj Tim: fv* ii:.i: ]t-.>Mt«*«6KiL ti^ iiuiuaL niiTurc." He ha£ tamtakU 
iii«wvf! . miy Tim: fiutrrii":'^ t irul:: a:ic xu'.ri: "^rui-.t waf ac'rorttted hv PrinoetoB 
tiieiiuvrmijfe. lit die ij'.i: ineaLT- U":-? :ii* :n'7ii:iu': inr : [ ni^'L »' ihai whinb i^tbt^ainL 
H«- ivim^l:x»*.. TtK lu'*T iiiii: al ihvl an (siikiKTt- I^t iZitMTiiazm at wttll «»■ lir TcUmBaiy 
an. auc at l-iunc ti it -.j \jru\ il >.T;jir-rt^ :i:iiL il ih* Ci. T. azic in theX. T. : t^Qm, 
VcL : : t~ ' 1 pi'deB :a* i:ii.cr Uf a:.::r?i c'Iem. vl.:: vt bit* iscmc apizu' um. T&. Z aac arj 
icTi inuflL ' Jr L S — ' >' n. j> c tt ii ncr sau!i uc ic oar mtiuuL vrr xu fe v» arivi 
itunrai mc w%. «-• uu. a&* iiUi'n i' 2> —■ J* ^lanr.cop. ( ^tb-rrat oc Trr'ffniM at 1» nuptsr rfar 
falnn Ibt w. »t^ buuhc ar-::* um ' Tut ▼- tc ' .zrcm. ' » jtw^lf found in t^ K. T. : e« 0^ 
• TiXL ^ ]! — ' «'. K^ be iK:fs» L r-3r '.»«£ r* wr bl *- r lo: i* .j^u. u lasr »ww™; ' nr "bbok ib IhiK" 
— ».i ai-i'.t fii'v.rK.i, Lcc I 11 — ' ill i» -f' :s»~i<i tut inen a> &i kt ' — -omk •*Ar<i«TH4. 

N\i; iii.-.i iiK wLii'.if \t S'.T-:;i:;.'^ 'l:iii'.*k. riu; n.< »:ivrL musu ahvt, harip impmed to 
tiH.-iw*.-;*** :ii«. *!ii* -y. ii: ii"?v. .>' lini: ;ie.i:»i<- iii ihv.z L:ni'*&. c»l Uic wh{iit- w£irld. Ji 
liiui. Lt-iFura-i. Ii-?* tr^n lUfw ju-ii-l i-y A-kt^ >- -; vi.. iat< 1: for pranTad ttast 
ini» jfr Hi ••vi. a^ n--f*»':i : I "»-:L id»*i3TL:r h vs.':! wrt al hki. unc acn as C Lhcdr eril 
n-: "Wi.. ut .: 1 lui: ■.- iim;::"?-.: tin sar.it s:u*- h'.}L liac int Minn iT.fi?inllif«. no thai llir 
kij-.»vj-uirt v- ".ij-r *i:.;:iu> v-;,. -ir.^ru.at :^ v.*- !i»iii:nF ^''^» *■ «•:««■ ol iihaiiie.'' TVed- 
friL'c l»'iu!i.»i y*i.::-i -. "1 irisJ. t: f;»:.i-.-s* ":ii- R.ni- :*'. 'tn l.nif a? jlj own.^ Moberlf, 
A'.'xi'.'aiv:.: a:iL ^vrsjauiiTj. ?T — *-T!J'. T't.ru?!* *si.i.iai,r-rr at liUimaiJTT ' to ismaluf 
t*i-tr7 ca:: 11 u-:»:i lju'!. sicr.ilii'jii .*- "^m.:rv,T -wc :i.-.. wf 6; dot lor cnaneiTiaF alme. 
2: jfr u.i: ar ut in^rTj::!!!*! u:*:n ZhL'.'. n,i t** iiuras^-^'i :ir .iuawi." Ii:»j'cifc.'Wf<ridand 
lud.-^-j.iuu^ 1 ^i« — *Ti« ^r. .:u-.'n. :•: t^-.. ;:i.i:»:»i :i: :::j.:k> int iir:^*enot erf fit* will In 
iiK TiiTi: . v:..!- . .11. "*iK :i::Kr iu*ii.".. :: » •:•. u:..:t t-.i, hu,: nr- izi>iral '•rarld 
cai I*: n:uas iM^isar •.•:.: v:::. ::it r-i.:sT.i.' ::i-'».te. h.*.' .-:::t:c t,- vlu.rt iT« ▼"!!! apwitl i 
a. lki":u:K knn. xx. '.•«':u.;:.'' . axia-.-ne-uj:-!.; n: -.ji: o :•:■.> .i: .i:jirr ni,*r*; ar<'r.T«^ Il folDowi 
zim'^ XL ;vj,: ;ii.Tru_ v.i-r .. ::i-. T•ip:.Ti•.'■J^ ratr, si.ft': "m .Th.in: int]:vidual^ otawniiif tbelr 
vufltrui^. ;u«: iHv-au* :br^;: : vt-^i :a.\-t ^» i:i.if:i(>ii.ifr.t Nfuxip. bm «re Unked vtih all 

Tut a*.!, vt cru.fil.Ti.inf U^uirzvt^ \hi ittSh^ .r. s, bumar TftsovmsibiliTr thai pnv beyond 
ii*t :Kv.::iuf .i^ ;»!^Ts.inu; r::ml "^iua :!.* ri^s:*.in<;:*».ii;y is. an.~. v hsi ix» lunft* «>«. ^»« 
l«^t vxr, -.. ottfxxit . Tin ;c-k Illicit tf jCji7t\«. b^; xi.ij ho^xki^ b^r A. H. Uradtiffd, H«*dllj, 




IMPTTTATIOK OP ADAM'S 8IK TO HIS POSTERITY. 695 

19B, and The Age of Faith, S86~** Stephen prays: 'lord, lay not tkii tin to their ehArgt* (A0ti7:6O). 
To whoee charge then ? We all have a share in one another's sins. Wo too stood by 
and consented* as Paul did. * My sins gave sharpness to the nails. And pointed every 

thorn * that pierced the brow of Jesus Yet in England and Wales the severer 

forms of this teaching [with regard to sin] have almost disappeared ; not because of 
more thorough study of the Scripture, but because the awful congestion of population, 
with its attendant miseries, has convinced the majority of Christian thinkers that the 
old Interpretations were too small for the near and terrible facts of human lif^ such as 
women with babies in their arms at the London gin-shops giving the Infftnts sips of 
liquor out of their glasses, and a tavern keeper setting his four or five year old boy 
upon the counter to drink and swear and fight in imitation of bis elders.' 



t* 



( c ) There are two f ondamental principles which the Scriptores already 
cited seem dearly to substantiate, and which other Scriptores corroborate. 
The first is that man's relations to moral law extend beyond the sphere of 
conscious and actual transgression, and embrace those moral tendencies 
and qualities of his being which he has in common with every other member 
of the race. The second is, that God's moral government is a government 
which not only takes account of persons and personal acts, but also recog- 
nizes race responsibilities and inflicts raoe-penalties ; or, in other words, 
judges mankind, not simply as a collection of separate individuals, but also 
as an organic whole, which can collectively reyolt from Qod and incur the 
curse of the violated law. 

On race-responsibility, see H. B. Smith, System of Theology, 288-908— ^ No one can 
apprehend the doctrine of original sin, nor the doctrine of redemption, who insists that 
the whole moral government of Ood has respect only to individual desert, who does not 
allow that the moral government of Gkxl, as moral, has a wider scope and larger rela- 
tions, so that God may dispense suffering and happiness ( in his all-wise and inscrutable 
providence ) on other grounds than that of personal merit and demerit. The dilenuna 
hero is : the facts connected with native depravity and with the redemption through 
Christ either belong to the moral government of Ood, or not. If they do, then that 
government has to do with other considerations than those of personal merit and 
demerit ( since our disabilities in consequence of sin and the grace offered in Christ are 
not in any sense the result of our personal choice, though we do choose in our relations 
to both ). If they do not belong to the moral government of God, where shall we assign 
them ? To the physical ? That certainly can not be. To the divine sovereignty ? But 
that does not relieve any difficulty ; for the question still remains. Is that sovereignty, 
as thus exercised. Just or unjust ? We must take one or the other of these. The whole 
(of sin and grace) is either a mystery of sovereignty — of mere omnipotence— or a 
proceeding of moral government. The question will arise with respect to grace as well 
as to sin : How can the theory that all moral government has respect only to the merit 
or demerit of personal acts be applied to our Justification ? If all sin is in sinning, with 
a personal desert of everlasting death, by parity of reasoning all holiness must consist 
in a holy choice with personal merit of eternal life. We say then, generally, that all 
definitions of sin which moan a sin are Irrelevant here." Dr. Smith quotes Edwards, 
2:900— ** Original sin, the innate sinful depravity of the heart, includes not only the 
depravity of nature but the Imputation of Adam's first sin, or, in other words, the liable- 
ness or exposedncss of Adam*s posterity, in the divine judgment, to partake of the 
punishment of that sin." 

The watchword of a large class of theologians — popularly called " New School " — la 
that " all sin consists in sinning," — that is, all sin is sin of act. But we have seen that 
the dispositions and states in which a man is unlike God and his purity are also sin 
according to the meaning of the law. We have now to add that each man is responsible 
also for that sin of our first father In which the human race apostatized from God. In 
other words, we recognize the guilt of raoe-ein as well as of personal sin. We desire to 
say at the outset, however, that our view, and, as we believe, the Scriptural view, 
requires us also to hold to certain qualifications of the doctrine which to some extent 
alleviate its harshness and fomiBh Its proper explanation. These quallfloatlons we now 
piDoeed to mention. 



y>C ajthj5:?*:o:»;-t. :l tei lorr 



r.*_ r-ifv.'jr "-:••. r iii- rzl~ •: ni!>=-5i:. ▼•r sri »: 'z^iss zz. zxizil : ( 1) 



>■- ■x'n ♦T-Jl ii-r» •-"-•ti.'--- :7^:?"LijT ierTk^rn" " '^ ^■— t. li** zso% eas be 

* ' • • - _ _* - - • ■ - 

:.-- .v>"'>:7 ,f iLt rj»w-. ii. ir .'i ; f li* «ii- m M-^i-'idrfcr: ilir =tI »Eii ic- r-s^pue 



%.-.-j^<. •*•.•-*•. •:! 4. aa iL L* : it J " . I»-i.:>^t. iraire*!- TaK«:«T. *t — •'soiSsnoC 
', -. ?■ ;*: .-■* T^t. *. , : ». I. -C : r»-.-T :c_7 <• ui^ "■ _: rrtz--: : ;*ikrfce*:«r kz»i kll tbit li ;=To^^ed 
; ■- vzsie *f .-•:.• t.** 'jt :*■•. .*^ '.f >j-.'^ trrr. :■■_*.-: i : - ;_t v. -.*■ r-^* za?* ^--- ic- 

% . : -i. •. ■.-.*'r-. '. ■«: viit: lj^ '••^^n la-je: h «• * j*- ■-- : ; s^ it* ■* ^fcrri-" 

*>•. k r r*^. .* " i'«. : ^i.-.- , i £r- rr ti - A ■ rti-i-z. Liii x ^ *■! ■ ■»■ j- ■■■ * =.az raky 7i.r. ■» avaj 
*rv*rrjr to-: ■ ti'jsjr*- • ? * •-- •»>-: itrr^l-TT i-- : - rLT-.r:*- i^eciu "^-il-r ir> ■i:»rr ofcr: ir: ^nr«h orer 
X'jh w.rvr. M-iti : ^> :. i •-=£-.- 1> ■liinti'T'irr :r: =: exM-rr:*- ci-.:di>.«h ^<n ^ttpcx ii bj hit 

VI* v.. ,»•-*:-• 5i.-. « :. - ■- T:>- . i*a o; .ih-r.tei am.! ca= \*l- a^xvy'^i oely if fiArmUek>d 
*/? w ,:■<»'.? .ivr.-.v.tl i* » -i. T>: c*. :!*:•- --rc.iss c' si:: h.^ve .free been zvyu^xd at 
»/^.-..c.. • .•..^: ".:j-: 'r,ii*^t-' n .r^ of a--:* if Ltv l.»-r:r: rr«r5i:ii &» c-Iy :siIi>JusL But 
•yt? »-:.•/ rra-.-ri,*.- ■..,-.:. ?'x.*i ar.: evi^'" Mr«. Lyiia A-.-ery OVr- sJey WarJ; •"Whj* 
»•,«.** v.o ., Or- .. '.f ::.::>«:. CT-uiLr*! ^r a::.»:«Tri: «:= : Ti u ^.^a a no^ie berSta^e, 
7 ■-*'. r- .- t.'y?>. V. T. rr v.r„ Tlv lax*'«i j'*«: cay br::^? f ni i- wtrs. A* bkAEk'^sKHl 
A^/or. - ."/^ : >''. .'vv-T r ? *,:. ar.=\.- H-.rvL:y Ir. m •:;->i." For further staxementB 
w . •- f. / i;irfe/ d I'm r^'A- r «-«7 < =£?. . . . : y . ■^.- I»- rr. • r. G liu t» £*;•. im-. 2 : 3^^ ( Syviem 
lyy:.'.t:. 2: 'tt-T-; . lor th>- ll Ahrii vi*-T c* ibe Fall, aal ;:i rcxV'aciliation irlih the 
«1 '/'.'•. rJ;.*; '^f '.'•,'. .*..o;., ^*- J. H. IVm.-.ri, ar.: Tlv Fall, in Ha.<::=g«* Diet. of BIhle; 
A. if . .r*rM:*ir. Corlfir*. .ii ^,t*a\.ou, i'>>-lSO; Gr:±ih-JuDes, Akttdi ihxvugh Christ. 

f f ) T:^<rro ih a rao^jr-hii;, thoiT:f<.>re, &<3 veil as a persoxud sm ; and thai 
r?«/3*:-'-:;ii vart <yjrui:*itu-'l by tLe lir-t father of the race, when he comprised 
t}i': 'Ah'/!': Hi/:'; in ]iiu^v:lf. All nLmkiiid since that time hare been bom in 
t.'i': hXixX/i iiit/> w;.ir;h he foU — a Ktateof depravity, gnilt, and condemnation. 
'V't vi/i'licat/: (j'A'h JTLstice in iinpnting to us the sin of our first father, 
ii.;x!j y i]i*:onf.-*i hav<i W.ri devise* I, a part of which must be regardeil as onl j 
art* ;/j;it... Vj evaile tho jir^/)ili.-ra by denWug the facts set before ns in the 
S'jri pt ureb. Aui'iwjr these attempted c'X]jlaijatioiis of the Scripture state- 
i/jerit'», we pr<x'«^,-*:d to exiiiuine the six theories which seem most worthy of 
(ttteiition. 

Tlfr fir>t ihr*:^: of the theorlcf* which we dJ.scius may be said to be evasloiu of the 
|fr'iM<:fii of Of ii^iriHl kiii ; alJ, in one form or another, deny tbat God imputes to all men 
A'liiifj'r hjii, In Huoh a Mrriw; tliut all aru ffuilty for it. These tlieories are the Pelagian, 
Lhf; Anititmui, tuid tiii; \<.'w Si:hof>l. The last three of the theorice which we are about 
Lo Lf-eut, iiumely, tiie FefJerul tlHXjry, the thcyoiy of Mediate ImputatioUtaiid the theoty 




PELAGIAK THEORY OF IMPUTATIOlSr. 697 

of Adam's Natural Headship, aro all Old Sohool theories, and have for th6ir oommon 
'Characteristic that they assert the sruilt of inborn depravity. All three, moreover, hold 
chat we are in some way responsible for Adam's sin, thou^rh they differ as to the precise 
way in which we arc related to Adam. Wo must grrant that no one, even of these latter 
theories, is wholly satisfactory. We hope, however, to show that the last of them— 
the Augustinian theory, the tiieory of Adam's natural headship, the theory that Adam 
and his descendants are naturaMy and organically one — explains the largest number of 
tBctBf is least open to objection, and 48 most aooordant with Scripture. 

L Theoeebs of Imputation. 

1. 2%e Pelagian Theory^ or Theory of Man^a natural Innocence. 

Pelagins, a British monk, proponnded his doctrines at Borne, 409. They 
were oondenmed by the Council of Carthage, 418. Pelagianism, however, 
as opposed to Angostinianism, designates a complete scheme of doctrine 
with regard to sin, of which Pelagins was the most thorough representatiye, 
although every feature of it cannot be ascribed to his authorship. Socinians 
and Unitarians are the more modem advocates of this general scheme. 

According to this theory, every human soul is immediately created by 
€k)d, and created as innocent, as free from depraved tendencies, and as 
X>erf ectly able to obey God, as Adam was at his creation. The only effect 
of Adam's sin upon his posterity is the effect of evil example ; it has in no 
way corrupted human nature ; the only corruption of human nature is that 
hal)it of sinning which each individual contracts by persistent transgression 
of kno^nilaw. 

Adam's sin therefore injured only himself ; the sin of Adam is imputed 
only to Adam, — it is imputed in no sense to his descendants ; God imputes 
to each of Adam's descendants only those acts of sin which he has person- 
ally and consciously committed. Men can be saved by the law as well as 
by the gospel ; and some have actually obeyed God perfectly, and have 
thus been saved. Physical death is therefore not the penalty of sin, but 
an original law of nature ; Adam would have died whether he had sinned 
or not ; in Bom. 5 : 12, ** death passed nnto all men, for that all sinned," 
signifies: ''all incurred eternal death by sinning after Adam's example." 

Wiggers, Augustinism and Pelagianism, 60, states the seven points of the Pelagian 
doctrine as follows : ( 1 ) Adam was created mortal, so that he would have died even if 
he had not sinned ; (2) Adam's sin injuricd, not the human race, but only himself; (8) 
new-bom infants are in the same condition as Adam before the !Fall; (4) the whole 
human race neither dies on account of Adam's sin, nor rises on account of Christ's 
resurrection ; (5) infants, oven though not baptized, attain eternal life; (6) the law is 
as Kood a means of salvation as the gospel ; ( 7 ) even before Christ some men lived who 
did not commit sin. 

In Pelagius* Com. on Rom. 5 : 12; published in Jerome's Works, voL xl, we learn who 
these sinless men were, namely, Abel, Enoch, Joseph, Job, and, among the heathen, 
Socrates, Aristidcs, Numa. The virtues of the heathen entitle them to reward. Their 
worthies were not indeed without evil thoughts and inclinations ; but, on the view of 
Pelagius that all sin consists in act, those evil thoughts and inclinations were not sin. 
** Non pleni nascimur " : we are bom, not full, but vacant, of character. Holiness, 
Pelagius thought, could not be concreatod. Adam's descendants are not weaker, but 
stronger, than he ; since they have f ultllled many commands, while he did not fulfil ho 
much as one. In every man there is a natural conscience ; he has an ideal of life; he 
forms right resolves ; herecogrnizes the claims of law ; he accuses himsdf when ho sins, 
—all these things Pelagius regards as indications of a certain holiness in all men, and 
misinterpretation of these facts gives rise to his system ; he ought to have seen In them 
evldanoee of a divine influence opposing man's bent to evil and leading him to repeat- 



Wi hSTBiBfjifXJjfiZ, C'i tzj: iKtrsizsi or 




^nxfr.'Viiqr uoo. vr.L luf lupt T#'.*«i'»^f» '.if r*.tiii'-n. mit viL. 'Vnift 

litr.u'.^'iii: :;, 'A w'^^ l\ »t Jpvmau ny^tbM. v. 

' ^|fr . ,>>-.„ S : 1*. 3* . — - /^latf'm-ftgL ae w* "unit onsx::* s iw 

0«*ir«r v^ '^ r«c '--f O-yi M n. vs. m ;#.<«. '.ii^ 7^ ira* «-.0»»7O:il of GroA nq- 
hyxAf r*xtiAj'jL V^ Tim,' m v»r. w v, tsit ^-rvertA. u:u:r«rK. 7te rrat eanBrpocs of : 
nri\i^*ik •Kt>lb"r j'x. 'jf i:j» t'rjtr^jfn ^zjft y ws\ I7 rwie^oce. Cif ixi?i:Li» mad 
If '.-^ O'/C y*r4;bijfat:.Jitsi^ :jl i^A-^.iqr *'-«r nikr fc 4»rrtj .TOfttsn ^cjy iic tiMCt ctf 

2 : i^i^^S /»^r«t' I^'X^^ 2 : $i^. Mr : S : 14* ' ^jv^^ Irxt. ; : M . AJiso ScbftC. Cfaarck HIi. 
t/jry, Z:7^-*Ui; iMM.^.rsjHk *A tM; Ejtr.j iyx-Ta'ii>, ia Przi^^oin Faa j ■» 1: 
W)r«>^, P<:jaib^iai/;k<f7.uft. Y'/r R.'jAacL-UftJ1.7 PeJa^wa Acs^VKBrUi, 




^ 



Of tb/5 Pcljii^ikxi t W/ry of Bia, we xcaj wt : 

A« It \2*n uf^vffT f x>.^ rf<9r.^(nuzed mb ScnjAnnl, nor has it been famui- 
UA4A ill «:0nJ*i^.io:ih^ hy hut hrnnch of the Chrisdjin chnrch. HdLd onlj 
Hiffrh^Yu^kWy mri/i by ir4'ljvi<hjui!.v, it Lhj^ ever bcnen n^'anled by the church at 
Jmtj^'s tbH hfir*:*iy, Thbi OfjuHUtaXea at least a presaznption agMust its tmtfa. 

Am HlMYftrr VM ** tb^; vurn ^/f aiJJ vUImIdj^'* §fj the Petaffiaii doctrine maj be caDed tlio 
uwn of itii ttdms ^MUrizit:, Pt'lmriftxiiem if a surviral of paganism, in tta majotie 
tugoktm Hii'l tifilt-f^jiiiitlMf^^n.7. ** Ci'stfT^j^ in hii Natura De^jruaL. mjtb that men thank 
tt0'. K'^U f</r <;xt^'rnal a/l vnoUipw, but no man crer thank* the irodsfor liis Tirtues — 
ttmt tv; Ui hofii^irt or imr*; or tw.n-ituL Pclafrius wbb first rfitued to oppoaitloo bj 
ttittUinr M, r/U)j'/f/ in tU; piiMio n^.Tviou of ttie church quote* Augustine^s prayer : * Tla 
'|ij'/'J jijf/<-«, <:t juUs f|ij'^ vw '— * Give what thou oommandcst, and command what thou 
wlii.' Fioffi tlil« lut WMA Usfl Ui formulate the ^^epel according* to St. CioerOi, ao per- 
f«-'rilX d'j<!« the P<;ia«fliui <\tn:tr\wi repro<iuoe the Pa^an teaching.** The impulse of tiie 
i'Mt latlaif, on tin; oth<rr hand, fa u» refer all glf ta and graces Vi a divine source in Christ 
and in Uk} Holy Hfilrit. 1^.2:10 — **?«▼# an kit vorkaafiiki^owtad ia Christ i«mfcrgMiwk^ 
wliMi'i44*r«r«K*pv*4^^***^^*^ v^^^*^^"t iokal5:16-^'T«4idBotekoQMBi^tatJchMi7fi**; i:0 
• - ** vM vara born, B«t «f bk«d, s«r of tki vill of tk« imk, Dor of tko vill of nu, tat of God." H. Auber : 
*' A fid ny*'ry virtue wo p<jaiOM, And erory victory won. And every thought of holiness^ 
Ar«i hlaitloni;/' 

AniguHiUm had wild that *' Han is most free when controlled by God alone**— 
** [ iHMi ] H^ilo drifninttnt42, liiM'rriinua " ( l>e Mor. Eccl., zzi ). Gore, in Lux Mundi, 880— 
'* In C/lirlMt huniiuiity in |N)rfect, Ix9causeln him it retains no part of that false independ- 
Mu%% wlil'jii, in fill Ita ninfiifold forms, is the secret of sin.*' Pelagrianism, on the 
iiofit t-ary, la man's d«!clfiration of indc|N;nrlence. Hariiaclc, Hist. Dogma, 5 : 200— **The 
iMfMMM^i of rolfiglfifilsm, tlio kfjy Ui ita whole mode of thought, lies In this proposition of 
Jiilliifi t * Hofno illNfro fu'bltrlo emancii>atus a Deo * — man, created froe, is in his whole 
iHiifig IfMleiHtudftiit of Go<l. Ho has no longer to do with God, but with himself alone. 
Go<l nii^uU^v nuui's life only at Uie end, at the judgment,— a doctrine of the orphanage 
of humanity." 

II. It (MiiiinuliotH Bcriptnre in denying : (a) that evil disposition and 
Niiitu, itH woU iiM uvii lustH, are sin ; ( 6 ) that suoh evil disposition and state 
oru inborn in all mankind; (a) that mon universally are gniltyof overt 
trimHffroHNlon h<> mnni tw tlioy oome to moral ooDscionsncss ; (d) that no 
mau is ablo >viUiuut diviuo holp to fulfil the law; (e) that all men, witik- 



PELAGIAK THEORY OP IMPUTATION. 699 

ont exception, are dependent for salvation npon Gk>d's atoning, regenerat- 
ing, sanctifying grace ; (/) that man's present state of cormption, 
condemnation, and death, is the direct effect of Adam's transgression. 

The Westminster Confessioa, ch. vl, 2 4, declares that " we are utterly indisposed, 
disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all eviL" To Pelagius, 
on the contrary, sin is a mere Incident. He knows only of situ^ not of sin. He holds 
the atomic, or atomistic, theory of sin, which regards it as consisting in isolated voli- 
tions. Pelegianism, holding, as it does, that virtue and vice consist only in single decis- 
ions, does not account for character at aU. There is no such thing as a state of sin, or 
a self-propagating power of sin. And yet upon these the Scriptures lay greater emphasis 
than upon mere acts of transgression. John8:6— "Thai vhiohii born of tlufleili is fleih"—'* that 
which comes of a sinful and guilty stock is itself, from the very beginning, sinful and 
guilty ** ( Domer ). Witness the tendency to degradation in families and nations. 

Amiel says that the great defect of liberal Christianity is its superficial conception of 
sin. The tendency dates far back : TertuUian spoke of the soul as naturally Christian— 
** anima naturaliter Christiana." The tendency has come down to modem times : Crane, 
The Keligion of To-morrow, 246 — ^* It is only when children grow up, and begin to 
absorb their environment, that they lose their artless loveliness." ABochcster Unitar- 
ian preacher publicly declared it to be as much a duty to believe in the natural purity 
of man, as to believe in the natural purity of Ood. Dr. Lyman Abbott speaks of ** the 
shadow which the Manichsean theology of Augustine, borrowed by Calvin, cast upon 
all children, in declaring them bom to an inheritance of wrath as a viper's brood.'* Dr. 
Abbott forgets that Augustine was the greatest opponent of Hanichseanism, and that 
his doctrine of inherited eruilt may be supplemented by a doctrine of inherited divine 
influences tending to salvation. 

Prof. G. A. Coe tells us that **all children are within the household of God"; that 
'* they are already members of his kingdom " ; that " the adolescent change " is *' a step 
not iTito the Christian life, but within the Christian life.'* We are taught that salvation 
is by education. But education is only a way of presenting truth. It still remains 
needful that the soul should accept the truth. Pelagianism ignores or denies the pres- 
ence in every child of a congenital selfishness which hinders acceptance of the truth, 
and which, without the working of the divine Spirit, will absolutely counteract the 
influence of the truth. Augustine was taught his guilt and helplessness by transgres- 
sion, while Pelagius remained ignorant of the evil of his own heart. Pelagius might 
have said with Wordsworth, Prelude, 634— ** I had approached, like other youths, the 
shield Of human nature from the golden side ; And would have fought, even unto the 
death, to attest The quality of the metal which I saw." 

Schaff, on the Pelagian controversy, in Bib. Sao., 5 : 205-248 — The controversy 
** resolves itself into the question whether redemption and sanctification are the work 
of man or of God. Pelagianism in its whole mode of thinking starts from man and 
seeks to work itself upward gradually, by means of an imaginaxy good-will, to holiness 
and conmiunion with God. Augustinianism pursues the opposite way, deriving from 
Gk)d's unconditioned and all-working grace a new life and all power of working good. 
The first is led from freedom into a legal, self-righteous piety ; the other rises from the 
slavery of sin to the glorious liberty of the children of God. For the first, revelation is 
of force only as an outward help, or the power of a high example ; for the last, it is the 
inmost life, the very marrow and blood of the new man. The first involves an Ebion- 
itlc view of Christ, as noble man, not high-priest or king ; the second finds in him one 
in whom dwells all the fulness of the Gk>dhead bodily. The first makes conversion a 
process of gradual moral purification on the ground of original nature ; with the last, 
it is a total change, in which the old passes away and all becomes new. . . . Bationalism 
is simply the form in which Pelagianism becomes theoretically complete. The high 
opinion which the Pelagian holds of the natural will is transferred with equal right 
by the nationalist to the natural reason. The one does without grace, as the other 
does without revelation. Pelagian divinity is rationalistio. nationalistic morality is 
Pelagian.'* See this Comi)endium, page 89. 

Alien, Beligious Progress, 08-100— ** Most of the mischief of religious controversy 
springs from the desire and determination to impute to one's opponent positions which 
he does not hold, or to draw inferences from his principles, insisting that he shall 
be held responsible for them, even though he declares that he does not teach them. 
We say that he ought to accept them ; that he is bound logically to do so ; that they are 
necessary deduotioos from his system ; that the tendency of his teaching is in these 



e*» A3T3i: ?•: j:»=^t- :i r=3 »7riiyi oj 




J.i^jgrjztz -w .*Lai ZA-r^ ;c«i*rr^i : -.-i. • •u.ji * tji*:r'=»«: s^Erf.*!!:. ST-i-atir 

* ■ : « -."y f:c -Sft .-Clin* -ft "•"ic-i rr'-^tiar- c Tir zuj&fc e--a«5=_s»ce v.rd 
fci-c- I": ""Tii titiir icocrca -wi- -v-r^ -•-1- ;c -irriz* i^kisi :cs c^ larii 

b:;.±.=if r: -; Vf ev -.as »-.r..: f r-rx^iinn-c. JL=»i t=* *Lai» r^icurx v:<^l apply 10 






tlv i-j»er if a c i-trijj ol :»>r i* f<fei.rijkl ^:- tl-? erLsScijCt of '■rill ; viieieas 
t:.-= "=iZ fiz. *. y.-eniAllT d-:cr7".:~ril :.:' self-rricidiiri. - Lis this rower onlr 



i*,"^ 11. r^ r-iir: ; (c • iLj: ibiLitj is tie — r-.i^Tir»r cf c'. '-mJ^.otl, — a principle 
■5-1: ?h -arcnl i JiziiLial. tie yfr.r.-er's r»e*T». ::^~: ilitj, ;-ij? in pnr-portion to his 
rr . ■::t»=?s* iz. sin : ( 'i » tLat Li""" c z:S5ta •: zlr iz. r«:**;nvr rnactzient : vbereasit 
is :Le deniai. i •if j-erf-jci Lirni-: lj "Bitl G .1, in-rrinzlt into rrjir.'s monl 
i^mre ; C *: ) that e^^h Lnm^in &. nl is iniiruiirtlr cr^Jitcd br G^. J, and 
L'jLis no oth^r itlitions to iz.:ril law :? .->n th.'se whi«di are indiridoal; 
whereas all L-:T:jin v.-zLs are crcarically c«:nn^^cd with each other, and 
t^'Cfether Lave a C"'^rT-:rate relation to God's law, by vzitae of their deri^a- 
ti >a. from one common stock. 

' a ) Neand^r. Ch-^ch H:«;ory. 2 : SM-CHS^ boUs cce of ibe fnadacxxtal pcfnciples of 

p. la;r.ii:- jrr. ti> h"? ~ ii:.«& ability :o ch >. ee, «;'JALr ac-l ar sny axr-rrien:. benrceii gooi 
ar.i «:'.:.." r:---r*r is r.o re^rvrr^iicn '■? :h-r law by wh:.h ic:> rn>i -<.•«■- <ta:ee; the p«>wer 
wJ..' :. r T^jut'-i i- t- • '. -viL p:4#*^« :<• f.re a -ielliilie -:harictvT ani les^ienoy to the will 
i:a*:.f.— •• Vo.:*: r: is an e^orLviti^g- *t:..k.' 'rick^'ar..! ftwlnx-ln^ of th-^ pendulum, but 
n'» movir.jf ^-»rwarl of ib<? han :* of the cl-xk foil.-"-*. " "T1::vtv i* no continuity of 
n:'yrAi i-f»-*— n'- • '.•i»-.i<;«r, :n is-tru an-rvl, d-.rii, or fi -1.""— ^1 S>.* art. on Power of 
O-rjtrary Cb'4«-. in Prlr.'.-eton K'^ay?. 1 : ?l2-233: Ptiaijiainisc: h-Tl.is that no conllnna- 
tj'/a :n holin».-ae i* F"^"?-t^--*- Th mwelL r::-i. 1. jry : " The sin"-; r i? as free as the saint : 
l\i*; 'I'.vii as t?ie ar.g».-;.' Harris. Phil-i^w Basis •.f Tbei*ai, 3»— - The thcx^ry that indlf- 
f'rn^rnc^ « f««-ri*-Li: to fr*.'».^I m impIieiB that w:il c»?'.>:r aciuin.* chiiracter ; that volun- 
tary arti'^^n i* ar oral-:; e. rvory act disinttTarrate-l fn.m evvrj- otrior: that character, if 
a^yjuir'-'i, woTji'l !>• lncf^m(«tibIo with fnjeii'Xii." ** By ::i-r? volition the soul now a 
/#•* r.um ran U-come a ra<ruum, or n'lW a r*!-. s'<'/i can Ixomo a j-Ji »• 'i.vi." On the Pela* 
l^an viow of fr*.-'j*Jom, see Julius M tiller. Doctrine of Sin, 37-44. 

f *t) /x TS • ft — ** ■lA=«=>n' za. aniist u '^t iz::^ia ;f :ir f:r!i:i*rs " ; 11^ : 5 — "Tt kait caaBi viA Mr 
£k::;«n. ' N'otifA the analotfy of in«li\i'luals who *u1I».t from the cfTi'cts of parental mis- 
take-*) or of national tranagression. Julius MliUer, DocL. Sin. 2 : o\'\ 317— •* Neither the 
alotnUtlc nor thi: organic vl'rw of human nature is the com}lrte truth." Each must 
Us f-ornplernent*.-*! by the other. For statement of raLr-rx-eponsibility, see Domer, 
f;iauJy:n»lehre, 2 : :*-¥*, 51-CI, 161, 162 ( System of IXiK-triue, 2 : o:4-;w4, 3l5-3."i0; 3 : 50^) 
— **Arrjorjif the.Scriptur*iprf^>f8 of the moral conn<x'tion of the individual with the 
rtkfjn tin: Un: vi->itin(r of the sins of the fathers uiK>n the childr«.*n ; the oblitr<itlon of the 
\fHit\t\ti X/t punish the nln of the Individual, that the whole land may not incur ffuilt; the 
off'jrlnjf of Ha<:rjfl':^i for a murder, the perpetrator of which u? unknown. Achan*s crime 
J^ f:}iiiTft*A U} the whoh; }>*:* title. The Jewish rac-e is the bettor fur its ])arcuta{re, and 
ot.h'T riatJorm arfj tlie worse for theirs. The Hebrew people become a lesral personality. 

** Im it "-aid that none am puriishe*! for the sins of their fathers uuk-ss they are like 
th<:lr fatlif:rB ? But Vj tto unlike their fathers requires a new heart. They who are not 




ARMINIAK THEORY OF IMPUTATION. 601 

held aocountable for tbo siiis of their f&thers are those who have rccogrnized their 
responsibility for them, and have repented for their likenoss to their ancestors. Only 
the self-lsolatinsr spirit says : *im I my brotkar's keeper ? ' ( Gen. 4 : 9 ), and thinks to construct a 
constant equation between individual misfortune and individual sin. The calamities 
of the ri^rhteous led to an ethical conception of the relation of the indivioual to the 
community. Such sufferings show that men can love God disinterestedly, that the srood 
has unselfish friends. These sufferings are substitutionary, when borne as belonging 
to the sufferer, not foreign to him, the guilt of others attaching to him by virtue of his 
national or race-relation to them. So Moses in Ix. 84 : 9; David in Fl 51 : 6; Isaiah in It. 59 : 9-16, 
recognize the connection between personal sin and race-sin. 

" Christ restores the bond between man and his fellows, turns the hearts of the fathers 
to the children. He is the creator of a new race-consciousness. In him as the head we 
see ourselves bound to, and responsible for, others. Love finds it morally impossible 
to isolate itself. It restores the consciousness of unity and the recognition of common 
guilt. Does every man stand for himself in the N. T. ? This would be so, only if each 
man became a sinner solely by free and conscious personal decision, either in the pres- 
ent, or in a past state of existence. But this is not Scriptural. Something oomes before 
personal transgression : 'That whioh is bom of the fleih is flesh * (John 8:6). Personality is the 
stronger for recognizing the race-sin. We have common Joy in the victories of the 
good ; 80 in shameful lapses we have sorrow. These are not our worst moments, but 
our best,— there is something great in them. Original sin must be displeasing to God ; 
for it perverts the reason, destroys likeness to God, excludes from communion with 
God, makes redemption necessary, leads to actual sin, influences future generations. 
But to complain of God for permitting its propagation is to oomplain of his not destroy- 
ing the race,— that is, to complain of one's own existence.'* See Shedd, Hist. Doctrine, 
2:93-110; Hagenbach, Hist. Doctrine, 1:287, 296-310; Martensen, Dogmatics, 854-362; 
Princeton Essays, 1 : 74-97 ; Dabney, Theology, 296-302, 314, 315. 

2. The Anninian Theory, or Theory of voluntarily appropriated 
Depravity. 

Arminins (1560-1609), professor in the University of Leyden, in South 
Holland, while formally accepting the doctrine of the Adamio unity of the 
race propounded both by Luther and Calvin, gave a very diflferent inter- 
pretation to it — an interpretation which verged toward Semi-Pelagianism 
and the anthropology of the Greek Ohurch* The Methodist body is the 
modem representative of this view. 

According to this theory, all men, as a divinely appointed sequence of 
Adam'8 traniigresaion, are naturaUy destitute of original righteousness, and 
are exposed to misery and death. By virtue of the infirmity propagated 
from Adam to all his descendants, mankind are wholly unable without 
divine help perfectly to obey God or to attain eternal life. This inability, 
however, is physical and intellectual, but not voluntary. As matter of jus- 
tice, therefore, God bestows upon each individual from the first dawn of 
consciousness a special infiuence of the Holy Spirit, which is sufficient to 
counteract the effect of the inherited depravity and to make obedience 
possible, provided the human will cooperates, which it still has power to do. 

The evil tendency and state may be called sin ; but they do not in them- 
selves involve guilt or punishment ; still less are mankind accounted guilty 
of Adam's sin. God imputes to each man his inborn tendencies to evil, 
only when he consciously and voluntarily appropriates and ratifies these in 
spite of the power to the contrary, which, in justice to man, God has 
BpecisHj communicated. In Kom. 5 : 12, ** death passed nnto all men, for 
that all sinned," signifies that physical and spiritual death is inflicted upon 
all men, not as the penalty of a common sin in Adam, but because, by 



602 ANTHBOPOLOOY, OH THE DOCTBIKB OF MAK. 

divine decree, all suffer the consequences of that sin, and beoaose all 
I)ersonally consent to their inborn sinf uhiess by acts of transgression. 

See Armlnlua, Works, 1:252-254, 317-324. 32&-327, 683-631,576-583. The deecHption arlven 
above Js a descriptioo of Arminlanism proper. The ezprcflBions of Armlnius himjaftif 
are so guarded that Moecs Stuart ( Bib. Repos., 1831 ) found it possible to construct an 
argument to prove that Arminius was not an Arminian. But it is plain that by inheri- 
ted sin Arminius meant only Inherited evil, and that it was not of a sort to Justify Ood*8 
condemnation. He denied any inbeing in Adam, such as made us Justly changeable with 
Adam's sin, except in the sense that we are obliged to endure certain consequences of 
it. This Shedd has shown in his History of Doctrine, 2 : 178-196. The sjrstem of Armin- 
ius was more fully expounded by Limborch and Episcopius. See Limborch, TheoL 
Christ., 8 : 4 : 6 ( p. 189 ). The sin with which we are born '' does not inhere in the soul, 
for this [soul] is immediately created by Ood, and therefore, if it were infected with sin, 
that sin would be from God." Many so-called AmninUnH, guch as Whitby and John 
Taylor, were rather Pelagrians. 

John Wesley, however, greatly modified and improved the Arminian doctrine. Hodge, 
Syst. TheoL, 2 : 329, 330 — ** Wesloyanism ( 1 ) admits entire moral depravity ; ( 2 ) denies that 
men in this state have any power to co(}perate with the grace of Ood ; ( 3) asserts that 
the guilt of all through Adam was removed by the Justification of all through Christ; 
(4)ability toco($perateiBOf the Holy Spirit, through the universal infiuence of the 
redemption of Christ. The order of the decrees is ( 1) to permit the fall of man ; ( 2) to 
send the Son to be a full satisfaction for the sins of the whole world ; ( 3) on that ground 
to remit all original sin, and to give such grace as would enable all to attain eternal life ; 
(4) those who improve that grace and persevere to the end are ordained to bo saved." 
We may add that Wesley made the bestowal upon our depraved nature of ability to 
co($perate with Ood to be a matter of grace, while Arminius regarded it as a matter of 
Justice, man without it not being accountable. 

Wcsleyanism was systematized by Watson, who, in his Institutes, 2 : 53-65, 60, 77, 
although denying the imputation of Adam^s sin in any proper sense, yet declares that 
''Limborch and others materially departed from the tenets of Arminius in dcnyiner 
inward lusts and tendencies to be sinful till complied with and augmented by the wilL 
But men universally choose to ratify these tendencies ; therefore they are corrupt in 
heart. If there be a universal depravity of will previous to the actual choice, then it 
inevitably follows that though infants do not commit actual sin, yet that theirs is a sinful 

nature As to infants, they are not indeed born Justified and regenerate ; so that 

to say original sin is taken away, as to infants, by Christ, is not the correct view of the 
case, for the reasons before given ; but they are all bom under * the free gift,* the 
effects of the * righteousness ' of one, which is extended to all men : and this free gift is 
bestowed on them in order to Justification of life, the adjudging of the condemned to 

live Justification in adults is connected with repentance and faith; in infants, we 

do not know how. The Holy Spirit may be given to children. Divine and effectual 
influence may be exerted on them, to cure the spiritual death and corrupt tendency of 
their nature." 

It will be observed that Watson's Wesleyanism is much more near to Scripture than 
what we have described, and projx^rly described, as Armiuianism proper. Pope, in his 
Theology, follows Wesley and Watson, and (2 : 70-86) gives a valuable synopsis of the 
differences between Arminius and Wesley. Whedon and Raymond, in America, better 
represent original Arminlanism. They hold that God was under obliaation to restore 
man's ability, and yet they inconsistently speak of this ability as a gracUms ability. 
Two passages from Raymond's Theology show the Inconsistency of calling that ** grace,'* 
which Ood is bound in Justice to bestow, in order to make man responsible : 2 : 84-86 ~ 
** The race came into existence under grace. Existence and Justification are secured 
for it only through Christ ; for, apart from Christ, punishment and destruction would 
have followed the first sin. So all grists of the Spirit necessary to qualify him for the 
putting forth of free moral choices are secured for him through Christ. The Spirit of 
God is not a b3r8tander, but a quickening power. So man is by grace, not by his fallen 
nature, a moral being capable of knowing, loving, obeying, and enjoying God. Such 
he ever will be, if he does not frustrate the grace of God. Not till the Spirit takes hia 
final flight is he in a condition of total depravity." 

Compare with this the following passage of the same work in which this •'grace " is 
called a debt : 2 : 817 — ** The relations of the posterity of Adam to God are substan- 
tially those of newly created beings. Each individual person is obligated to God, and 



ARMIlSriAN THEORY OF IMPUTATION. 603 

God to him, precisely the same as if Gk>d had created him such as he is. Ability must 
equal obligation. God was not obli^ted to provide a Redeemer for the first transgrres- 
sors, but having provided Redemption for them, and through it having permitted them 
to propagate a degenerate race, an adequate compensation is due. The gracious influ- 
ences of the Spirit are then a debt due to man— a compensation for the disabilities of 
inherited depravity.*' McClintock and Strong ( Cyclopeedia, art.: Arminius) endorse 
Whedon's art. in the Bib. Sac., 19 : S41, as an exhibition of Arminianism, and Whedon 
himself claims it to be such. See Hagenbach, Hist. Doct., 2 : 214-216. 

With regard to the Arminian theory we remark : 

A. We grant that there is a nniversal gift of the Holy Spirit, if by the 
Holy Spirit is meant the natural light of reason and conscience, and the 
manifold impnlses to good which struggle against the evil of man's nature. 
But we regard as wholly unscriptural the assumptions : (a) that this gift 
of the Holy Spirit of itself removes the depravity or condemnation derived 
from Adam's fall ; ( 6 ) that without this gift man would not be responsible 
for being morally imperfect ; and ( c ) that at the beginning of moral Hfe 
men consciously appropriate their inborn tendencies to eviL 

John Wesley adduced in proof of universal grace the text : John 1 : 9 — " th« Ugkt lUah light- 
elhcTery man "—which refers to the natural light of reason and ooDScience which the 
preincamate Logos bestowed on all men, though in different degrees, before his coming 
in the flesh. This light can be called the Holy Spirit, because it was "the Spirit of Christ " 
( 1 Pet. 1 : 11 ). The Arminian view has a large element of truth in its recognition of an 
influence of Christ, the immanent God, which mitigates the effects of the Fall and 
strives to prepare men for salvation. But Arminianism does not fully recognize the 
evil to be removed, and it therefore exaggerates the effect of this divine working. 
Universal grace does not remove man's depravity or man's condemnation ; as is evident 
from a proper interpretation of Rom. 5 : 12-19 and of Iph. 2:3; it only puts side by side with 
that depravity and condemnation influences and impulses which counteract the evil 
and urge the sinner to repentance : John 1 : 5 — " the light ihineth in the darkness ; and the darkaen 
apprehended it not." John Wesley also referred to Rom. 5 : 18 — "throng one act of righteoosness the free 
gift eame nnto all men to jnstiitoation of life " — but here the "all men " is conterminous with ** the many " 
who are "made righteons" in rerse 19, and with the "all" who are "made alire" in 1 Gor. 15 : 22; in 
other words, the "all " in this case is *'all believers'* : else the passage teaches, not uni- 
versal gift of the Spirit, but universal salvation. 

Arminianism holds to inherited sin, in the sense of infirmity and evil tendency, but 
not to inherited guilt. John Wesley, however, by holding also that the griving of ability 
is a matter of grace and not of Justice, seems to imply that there is a common guilt as well 
as a common sin, before consciousness. American Arminians are more logical, but less 
Scriptural. Sheldon, Syst. Christian Doctrine, 3S1, tells us that '* guilt cannot possibly 
be a matter of inheritance, and consequently original sin can be affirmed of the poster- 
ity of Adam only in the sense of hereditary corruption, which first becomes an occasion 
of guilt when it is embraced by the will of the individual." How little the Arminian 
means by ^*sin,*' can be inferred from the saying of Bishop Simpson that '* Christ inher- 
ited sin." He meant of course only physical and inteUectual infirmity, without a tinge 
of guilt. ** A child inherits its parent's nature," it is said, '* not as a punishment, but 
by natural law." But we reply that this natural law is itself an expression of God's 
moral nature, and the inheritance of evil can be Justified only upon the ground of a 
common non-conformity to God in both the parent and the child, or a participation of 
each member in the common guilt of the race. 

In the light of our preceding treatment, we can estimate the element of good and the 
element of evil in Pfleiderer, Philos. Religion, 1 : 232— ''It is an exaggeration when 
origrinal sin is considered as personally imputable guilt ; and it is going too far when it 
is held to be the whole state of the natural man, and yet the actually present good, the 
* original grace,' is overlooked. . . . We may say, with Schleiermacher, that original sin 
is the common deed and common guilt of the human race. But the individual alwajrs 
participates in this collective guilt in the measure in which he takes part with his per- 
sonal doing in the collective act that is directed to the furtherance of the bad." Babney, 
Theology, 315, 316—'* Arminianism is orthodox as to the legal consequences of Adam's 
Bin to his posterity ; but what it gives with one hand, it takes back with the other, 



'604 AISTTHBOPOLOOY, OR THE DOCTBIHE OF MAIST. 

attributing to grace the restoration of this natural ability lost by the lUL If the effects 
of Adam's Fall on his posterity are such that they would have been unjust if not 
repaired by a redeeming plan that was to follow It, then God's act In providing a 
Redeemer' was not an act of pure grace. He was under obligation to do some such 
thing,^ salvation is not grace, but debt." A. J. Qordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 187 tq^ 
denies the universal gift of the Spirit, quoting Mka 14 : 17— " vlirai tkt vorld cuiolnMiTi; fcrU 
bihiUi(kUBi0k,Biitk«kMw«aki]ii"; 16:7— "iflgo,! viUMBdUBUtejon"; i. e., Christ's disdpleB 
were to be the recipients and distributers of the Holy Spirit, and his church the mediator 
between the Spirit and the world. Therefore Ibik 16: 15 — ''Gojt into aUtktvwU.aaiinMli,*' 
Implies that the Spirit shall go only with them. Conviction of the Spirit does not go 
beyond the diurch's evangelizing. But we reply that Go. 6 : 3 implies a wider striving 
of the Holy Spirit. 

B. It oontradicts Soriptnre in Tnaintftining : ( a) that inherited moral 
evil does not involve guilt ; ( 6 ) that the gift of the Spirit, and the regen- 
eration of infants, are matters of justice ; (c) that the effect of grace is 
simply to restore man's natural ability, instead of disposing him to use that 
ability aright ; (d) that election is God's choice of certain men to be saved 
upon the ground of their foreseen faith, instead of being God's choice to 
make certain men believers ; ( e) that physical death is not the just pen- 
alty of sin, but is a matter of arbitrary decree. 

( a ) See Domer, Glaubenslehre, 2 : 58 ( System of Doctrine, 2 : 3S2-3BQ ) — ^ With Armin- 
iuB, original sin is original evtt only, not guUL He explained the problem of original sin 
by denying the fact, and turning the native sinfulness into a morally Indifferent thing. 
No sin without consent ; no consent at the beginning of human development ; there- 
fore, no guilt in evil desire. This is the same as the Romanist doctrine of concupis- 
cence, and like that leads to blaming Gk>d for an originally bad constitution of our 
nature. . . . Original sin iB merely an enticement to evil addressed to the free wilL 
All internal disorder and vltiosity is morally indifferent, and becomes sin only through 
appropriation by free wllL But involuntary, loveless, proud thoughts are recognised 
in Scripture as sin ; yet they spring from the heart without our conscious consent. 
Undeliberate and deliberate sins run into each other, so tliat it is Impossible to draw a 
line between them. The doctrine that there is no sin without oonsent implies power 
to withhold consent. But this contradicts the universal need of redemption and our 
observation that none have ever thus entirely withheld consent from sin." 

( b ) H. B. Smith's Review of Wbedcn on the Will, in Falwh and Philosophy, 369-aOQ — 
**A child, upon the old view, needs only growth to make him guilty of actual sin ; 
whereas, upon this view, he needs growth and grace too." See Bib. Sac., 20 : 327, 828. 
According to Whedon, Coul on Roid. 5 : 12; ** the condition of an infant apart from 
Christ is that of a sinner, as one sure to gin^ yet never actually condemned before per- 
sonal apostasy. This woidd he its condition, rather, for in Christ the infant is regenerate 
and justified and endowed with the Holy Spirit. Hence all actual sinners are apostates 
from a state of grace.*' But we ask : 1. Why then do infants die before they have com- 
mitted actual sin ? Surely not on account of Adam's sin, for they are delivered from 
all the evils of that, through Christ. It must be because they are still soopchow sinners. 
8. How can we account for all infants sinning so soon as they begin morally to act, if, 
before they sin, they are in a state of grace and sanctiflcation ? It must be because they 
were still somehow sinners. In other words, the universal regeneration and Justifica- 
tion of infants contradict Scripture and observation. 

( c ) Notice that this " gracious " ability does not involve saving grace to the recip- 
ient, because it is given equally to all men. Nor is it more than a restoring to man of 
his natural ability lost by Adam's sin. It is not sufficient to explain why one man who 
has the gracious ability chooses God, while another who has the same gracious ability 
chooses self. 1 Oar. 4 : 7 — " vho makgih thea to differ ? " Not Ood, but thyself. Over against 
this doctrine of Armlnians, who hold to universal, resistible grace, restoring natural 
ability, Calvinists and Augustinians hold to particular, irresistible grace, giving moral 
ability, or, in other words, bestowing the disposition to use natural ability aright. 
** Grace '* is a word much used by Armininians. Methodist Doctrine and Discipline, 
Articles of Relierion, viii —^ The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such that he 
cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and works, to faith, and 
calling upon Gk>d ; wherefore we have no power to do good works, pleasant and accept- 




ARMINIAN THEORY OF IMPUTATIOK. 605 

able to God, without the graoe of God by Christ preyentinsr us, that we may have a 
(rood win, and workincr with us, when we have that good will.'* It is important to 
understand that, in Arminian usa^re, grraoe is simply the restoration of man's natural 
ability to act for himself; it never actually saves him, but only enables him to save 
himself — if he will. Arminian firrace is evenly bestowed grace of spiritual end6wment, 
as Pelagian grace is evenly bestowed grace of creation. It regards redemption as a 
compensation for innate and consequently irresponsible depravity. 

( d) In the Arminian system, the order of salvation is, (1) faiths by an unrenewed 
but convicted man ; ( 3 ) justification ; ( 3 ) regeneration, or a holy heart. Ood decrees 
not to originate faith, but to reward it. Hence Wesleyans make faith a work, and 
regard election as God's ordaining those who, he foresees, will of their own accord 
believe. The Augustinian order, on the contrary, is ( 1) regeneration ; (2) faith ; ( 8 ) 
justification. Memoir of Adolph Saphlr, 2S6— ** My objection to the Arminian or seml- 
Arminian is not that they make the entrance very wide ; but that they do not give you 
anything definite, safe and real, when you have entered. . • . Do not believe the devil's 
gospel, which is a chance of salvation : chance of salvation is chance of danmation.** 
Grace is not a reward for good deeds done, but a poirer enabling us to do them. Francis 
Bous of Truro, in the Parliament of 1629, spoke as a man nearly frantic with horror at 
the increase of that "error of Arminianism which makes the grace of God lackey it 
after the will of man *' ; see Maason, Life of Milton, 1 : 2T7. Arminian converts say : ** I 
gave my heart to the Lord '* ; Augustinian converts say : ** The Holy Spirit convicted 
me of sin and renewed my heart." Arminianism tends to aelf-saffloleQoy ; Augustin- 
lanism promotes dependence upon God. 

0. It rests upon false philosophical principles, as for example : ( a ) That 
the will is simply the faculty of volitions. ( 6 ) That the xx)wer of oontrary 
choice, in the sense of power by a single act to reverse one's moral state, is 
essential to wilL (c) That previous certainty of any given moral act is 
incompatible with its freedom. ( d ) That ability is the measure of obli- 
gation. ( e ) That law condemns only volitional transgressioiL (/) That 
man has no organic moral connection with the race. 

( b ) Raymond says : " Man is responsible for character, but only so far as that char- 
acter is self-imposed. Wo are not responsible for character irrespective of its origin. 
Freedom from an act is as essential to responsibility as freedom to it. If power to the 
contrary is impossible, then freedom does not exist in God or man. Sin was a necessity, 
and God was the author of it." But this is a denial that there is any such thing as char- 
actor ; that the will can give itself a bent which no single volition can change ; that the 
wicked man can become the slave of sin ; that Satan, though without power now in 
himself to turn to God, is yet responsible for his sin. The power of contrary choice 
which Adam had exists no longer in its entirety ; it is narrowed down to a power to the 
contrary in temporary and subordinate choices ; it no longer is equal to the work of 
changring the fundamental determination of the being to selfishness as an ultimate end. 
Tet for this very inabilitrt because originated by will, man is responsible. 

Julius Mtlller, Doctrine of Sin, 2 : 28— '* Formal freedom leads the way to real free- 
dom. The starting-point is a freedom which does not yet involve an inner necessity, 
but the possibility of something else ; the goal is the freedom which is identical with 
necessity. The first is a means to the last. When the will has fully and truly chosen, the 
power of acting otherwise may still be said to exist in a metaphysical sense ; but 
morally, i. e., with reference to the contrast of good and evil, it is entirely done away. 
Formal freedom is freedom of choice, in the sense of volition with the express conscious- 
ness of other possibilities." Real froMom is freedom to choose the good only, with 
no remaining possibility that evil will exert a counter attraction. But as the will can 
reach a ** moral necessity " of good, so it can through sin reach a ** moral neoessity *' 
of evlL 

(c) Park: "The great philosophical objection to Arminianism is its denial of the 
certainty of human action —the idea that a man may act either way without certainty 
how he will act — power of a contrary choice in the sense of a moral indifference which 
can choose without motive, or contrary to the strongest motive. The New School view 
is better than this, for that holds to the certainty of wrong choice, while yet the soul 
has power to make a right one. . . . The Arminians believe that it is objectively uncer- 
tain whether a man shall act in this way or in that, right or wrong. There is nothing. 



\ 




606 ANTHROPOLOGY^ OB THE DOCTRINE OF MAK. 

anteoedcntly to choioe, to decide the choice. It was the whole aim of BdwanSa to 
refute the idea that man would not certainly sin. The old Galvlnists believe that ante- 
cedently to the Fall Adam was in this state of objective uncertainty, but that after the 
Fall it was certain he would sin, and his probation therefore was dosed. Edwards 
affirms that no such objective uncertainty or power to the contrary ever existed, and 
that man now has all the liberty he ever had or could have. The truth in * power to the 
contrary ' is simply the power of the will to act contrary to the way it does act. Pres- 
ident Edwards believed in this, though he is commonly understood as reasoning to the 
contrary. The false * power to the contrary ' is uncertainty how one will act, or a 
willingness to act otherwise than one does act. This is the Arminlan power to the con- 
trary, and it is this that Edwards opposes.** 

( c ) Whedon, On the Will, 838-860, 388-306—" Prior to free volition, man may be unoon- 
formed to law, yet not a subject of retribution. The law has two offices, one judica- 
tory and critical, the other retributive and penaL Hereditary evil may not be visited 
with retribution, as Adam's concreated purity was not meritorious. Passive, prevoU- 
tional holiness is moral rectitude, but not moral desert. Passive, prevolltional impurity 
needs concurrence of active will to make it condemnable.** 

D. It renders uncertam either the nniyersality of sm or man's responsi- 
bility for it. If man has full power to refuse consent to inborn depravityy 
then the universality of sin and the universal need of a Savior are merely 
hypotheticaL If sin, however, be universal, there must have been an absence 
of free consent ; and the objective certainty of man's sinning, aooording to 
the theory, destroys his responsibility. 

Raymond, Syst. TheoL, 2 : 86-80, holds it *' theoretically possible that a child may be 
so trained and educated in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, as that he will never 
knowingly and willingly transgress the law of God; in which case he will certainly 
grow up into regeneration and final salvation. But it is grace that preserves him from 
sin — [ common grace ? ]. We do not know, either from experience or Scripture, that 
none have been free from known and wilful transgressions.'* J. J. Murphy, Nat. 
Selection and Spir. Freedom, 26-33— ** It is possible to walk from the oradle to the 
grave, not indeed altogether without sin, but without any period of alienation from 
God, and with the heavenly life developing along with the earthly, as It did in Christ, 
from the first." But, since grace merely restores ability without giving the disposition 
to use that ability aright, Arminianism does not logically provide for the certain salva- 
tion of any infant. (Calvinism can provide for the salvation of all dying in infancy, for 
it knows of a divine power to renew the will, but Arminianism knows of no such power, 
and so is furthest from a solution of the problem of infant salvation. See Julius 
MQller, Doct. Sin, 2 : 320-826 : Balrd, Elohim Revealed, 47»40i ; Bib. Sac, 23 : 206 ; 28 : 279 ; 
Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 8 : 66 sg. 

3. 2%e New School Theory ^ or Theory of uncondemnable ViHoHty, 

This theory is called New School, because of its recession from the old 
Puritan anthropology of which Edwards and Bellamy in the last century 
were the expounders. The New School theory is a general scheme built 
up by the successive labors of Hopkins, Emmons, Dwight, Taylor, and 
Finney. It is held at present by New School Presbyterians, and by the 
larger part of the Congregational body. 

According to this theory, all men are bom with a physical and moral con- 
stitution which predisposes them to sin, and all men do actually sin so soon 
as they come to moral consciousness. This vitiosity of nature may be 
called sinful, because it uniformly leads to sin ; but it is not itself sin, since 
nothing is to be properly denominated sin but the voluntary act of trans- 
gressmg known law. 

God imputes to men only their own acts of personal transg^ression ; he 
not impute to them Adam's sin ; neither original vitiosity nor phyai- 



NEW SCHOOL THEORY OF IMPUTATION". 607 

cal death are penal inflictioDs; they are simply consequences which God 
has in his sovereignty ordained to mark his displeasure at Adam's trans- 
gression, and subject to which evils God immediately creates each human 
souL In Bom. 5 : 12, ''death passed unto all men, for that all sinned," 
signifies : " spiritual death passed on all men, becanse all men have aota- 
ally and personally sinned." 

Edwards held that God imputes Adam's sin to his posterity by arbitrarily identifying 
them with him, — identity, on the theory of continuous creation (see pages 415-418), 
being only what God appoints. Since this did not furnish sufficient ground for impu- 
tation, Edwards Joined the Plaoean doctrine to the other, and showed the Justice of the 
condemnation by the fact that man is depraved. He adds, moreover, the considera- 
tion that man ratifies this depravity by his own act. So Edwards tried to combine 
three views. But all were vitiated by his doctrine of continuous creation, which logrl- 
cally made God the only cause In the universe, and left no freedom, guilt, or responsi- 
bility to man. He held that preservation is a continuous series of new divine volitions, 
personal identity consisting in consciousness or rather memory, with no necessity for 
identity of substance. He maintained that God could give to an absolutely new cre- 
ation the consciousness of one Just annihilated, and thereby the two would be identi- 
cal. He maintained this not only as a possibility, but as the actual fact. See Lutheran 
Quarterly, April, 1901 : 141^169; and H. N. Gardiner, In Phllos. Rev., Nov. 1900 : 57S-596. 

The idealistic philosophy of Edwards enables us to understand his conception of the 
relation of the race to Adam. He believed in ^* a real union between the root and the 
branches of the world of mankind, established by the author of the whole system of 
the universe .... the full consent of the hearts of Adam's posterity to the first apos- 
tasy .... and therefore the sin of the apostasy is not theirs merely because God 
imputes it to them, but it is truly and properly theirs, and on that oround God imputes 
it to them." Hagenbach, Hist. Doct., 2 : 435-448, esp. 436, quotes from Edwards : " The 
guilt a man has upon his soul at his first existence is one and simple, viz. : the guilt of 
the original apostasy, the guilt of the sin by which the species first rebelled against God." 
Interpret this by other words of Edwards : " The child and the acorn, which come into 
existence in the course of nature, are truly Immediately created by God '*— i. e., con- 
tinuously created ( quoted by Bodge, Christian Theology, 188 ). Allen, Jonathan 
Edwards, 810—** It required but a step from the principle that each individual has an 
Identity of consciousness with Adam, to reach the conclusion that each individual is 
Adam and repeats his experience. Of every man it might be said that like Adam he 
comes into the world attended by the divine nature, and like him sins and falls. In 
this sense the sin of every man becomes original sin." Adam becomes not the head of 
humanity but its generic type. Hence arises the New School doctrine of exclusively 
individual sin and guilt. 

Shedd, Hist. Doctrine, 2 : 25, claims Edwards as a Traducianlst. But Fisher, Discus- 
sions, 240, shows that he was not. As we have seen ( Prolegomena, pages 48, 49 ), Edwards 
thought too little of nature. He tended to Berkeleyanism as applied to mind. Hence 
the chief good was in happiness —a form of senaibUity. "Virtue is voluntary choice of 
this good. Hence union of acts and exercises with Adam was sufficient. This God's will 
might make identity of Tyeing with him. Baird, Elohim Revealed, 250 sq.^ sajrs well, that 
** Edwards^s idea that the character of an act was to be sought somewhere else than in 
its cause Involves the fallacious assumption that acts have a subsistence and moral 
agency of their own apart from that of the actor." This divergence from the truth led 
to the Exercise-sjrstem of Hopkins and Emmons, who not only denied moral character 
prior to Individual choices ((. e., denied sin of nature), but attributed all human acts 
and exercises to the direct efficiency of God. Hopkins declared that Adam's act, in 
eating the forbidden fruit, was not the act of his posterity ; therefore they did not sin 
at the same time that he did. The sinfulness of that act could not be transferred to 
them afterwards; because the sinfulness of an act can no more bo transferred from 
one i)erson to another than an act itself. Therefore, though men became sinners by 
Adam, according to divine constitution, yet they have, and are accountable for, no sins 
but i)ersonal. See Woods, History of Andover Theological Seminary, 33. So the doo- 
trine of continuous creation led to the Exercise-sj'stem, and the Exerclse-sjrstem led to 
the theology of acts. On Emmons, see Works, 4 : 602-507, and Bib. Sac., 7 : 479 ; 20 : 317 ; 
also H. B. Smith, in Faith and Philosophy, 215-263. 

N. W. Taylor, of New Haven, agreed with Hopkins and Emmons that there Is no 



VA xFTy[3fj?<jZ»j^r. oa Tsz lOirra^yz o? 




^jtr r« Man ' or.c 'Mij '*aA .f Ji^ "r^^^ '.as ae ^^aa :f k w*m. "L" 

til*' ^ir^r, vuL AT.r. |ii» «u«i : - Xia 'Suu v^az^trv -Jiis H«:a7 Spirz io«» or 

'tr. • .tin itm; : ' Xar. -r-^ arx- 7:zj*mi •ae H-U7 •fltrat Iieaps' : * If I 

jM -n»i> HrA7 On«'jic. I ^yj^ol ir,iiT*r: flnx:«n m l!!jflc jn sa^.* T<c ae fid 3!C hotf » tte 

A.«m.nu*n Xf^sr.j r,t xJ'^JS^x^xxit or 'yASiiqeose. H< bciK««*i in. Ae 

vr^4ur U!f:ir,n. /«!« sk ^.-m^tr zo ztut v.esnrj. 3fe« X*:nu G«^v«raBiais. S : EC- 

4rr^r 'vf P^iagr'. m ww zfA .a iifi i 'iiy znaz maa. im r.irjKf &xi vic2b:a? pace. 

«k7 :nir '■•'ukc .*nikn V^^ -nsf iMr«I ^ ov>^ ffMi vt&oi.u? jrai!«L " Tbier* ie « pars of s^ : 

fitc-i^ */> vU.<^n *:iA airr:7*,i .,f »]^ ^--jipet siat j^c^a. — i par: ^f as namr c vhadk li 

Ar-i^iw!^ ar.ij !ir,r tmnnj. ?vz. »rtf-ir>*r». <;r 3l:io:*:!IS leaRre f :r hafpaaeaft. Gmaat 

Aap^iTMM. nfa«b tt&r^T 'SLi ii;a(#itkl ivi« <:fiAuc« cf lae w<-.irii aa hit ebaef fQn^d. aai €■■ 
V*' 74 A Ji Mar*. Vi ^y^/1. He can -io :i:iH. w^azev^ tae H>-A7 Spim dixa. cr 4:<» hx do ; 
r^:.t nlift rv^ii :r.jk.M..*7 cac rje ov^^t^f^o:^ rjcxf "tj che Hoir Spirti. w1u> saores tikfr aoolv 
viJtiw.r, fx/nr*.i,rjt(, ^tj 3»arj< of uie trur.a. On Dr. TarlAr'f ffjicetn, and IB 
v^-r.b prior .V«v EA^r^azwS tc^Af.%rf' 9» T^btfe. Cr.aciiaB(/Qk 2S5-454. 

T>.jt forrr. of 3t<;r9r rtr.t^-x^i tiftfXrs^ vispr^^tA che fou^/wmc -«Taatioai: L Ckn thei 
TQfft^r.^ i'i-<« y:Lf^4htMMi ^>irf -.r« h« ia folvtuf.il bj 'liTlriA gTac« ? 3L Can hfa ciMica of God 
tfsKe, rr.«T^ '^-if-ioT*: ^^ A ru-uj cfarjiob ? X ^;noe <j<jA denacda k)T« in ei wj cfaoiee. Binrt 
. *. r.<'#c r^ a ;^AiUT*:ij unbrjkj cboioe ? 4. If i^ a noc tfiaeif a IkrAj dxtbee^ hov can i£ be a 
r^vir.n;r<8r ''f hoiir>i« ? &. If the finner can becrjine re««OKnte br preferrlsy God on 
trjtf; rrr^'ind of ffr.f«iCVT«dit. vi:«er« is tl« a^ifieMttjof the Hoiy Sixni co resev the heart? 
<. rxi«r* r.-^t f hlrt MnerVr^ a^/'..itj of th^ iinner to tarn to Gcd ooctradict rnnm iinmai 
tit A .VTtp^/ir^ ? F'-jT TayU-^'^ vl^wii. we his Bev«:aJed Theoic^r, Oi-^B^. Ft?r cjHIUbm 
of ti>:in. »:f: Hr^Uf:. la Prlnfetoo B«^^ Jan. 1*A : 43 «;., and 3se-4K ; abo. Tyler. Letam 
or. tfy; X'.'W ffaT«n TYjf^fAf^y. }i*rXhfiT Hopkina and Emmooft on the one hand, nor 
Tajlor ^#n th^ 'ithcnr, r»rpi«3ttf:iit m^^t f uily the r>m«irrai coune of Xev Enytand tfaeoloffj. 
HrAAtiey, I/viirht. W'x>is aU he.4 to more <x»naervatiTe Tiewa than Taylor, or than 
F'l nwy. vri^/v; 4>'«f ;rri ba< 1 rr. U' .b rf'Sf^m ^ iacce t/i Taylor's. All t hree of t heae denied the 
lf^*w*ir 'if contrary <:ho:«<e whi'.h Dr. Taylor so strenuocKly maintaiBed, attlioagh all 
lun^r^t wttu niro iri'k.-r.yifur tbtfi:imputat;»nof Adam's sin or of our heredttagy d C|Ma i Uj ■ 
Tlt^:^^ ar»; not ftiuf ij1« frxr^.-pt in toe <K:tLre of Urin^ oicaeions of accnal fin. 

in. Park, of AiKlorer. vaii iin<iervt</«yl to teach that the disordered state of the w imI 
Mlitkfl and faouitua with vhkb w*: are bom is the imrwlUiU occasion of sin, whfle 
A'larn> tran!Krrf«>ion to the r*.nu^^, ocra^ion of sin. Tbe wilL thoajrh fnfluenoed bT an 
evli u-wUznf:y, Iff still frrje; th<i evil t*:n«l^.-noy itaelf is not free, and therefore is not lin. 
Tb4!» stat^rment of New iH:brK*l drjctrine ipven in the text is intended to represent tbe 
t^rtmmon New Eoffland dor.irlne, as tausrht by Smalley, Dwigbt, Woods and Park; 
althoufrh the htot/^rir^al t«;ndency, even amonir these theologians, has been toemphasiae 
\'-mn and Uirm tbe d^'praved tendencies prior to actual sin. and to maintain that moral 
character N;Rins only with individual choice, most of tbem, however, holding that tliii 
Individual <:holw ty^rins at birth. See Bib. Sac, 7 : 552. 567 ; e : 007-647 ; 90 : 408-471, 5?S- 
:Sf\\ Van (j'mU-rurH^ Oirifftian Dogmatics, 407-412; Forter, Hist. N. E. Tbeologry. 

Ikfth ]titM;hl and Pflf.'ldf^rer Ir^ran t^^ward the New School interpretation of sin. 
UitAf-h], [.'nU;rricht, :?>—'* Tnlversal death was the conse^^uence of the sin of theflnt 
man, and the dfftth of his fK^sterlty proved that they too had sinned.** Thus death is 
unlvental, not \My(nun0^fft natural generation from Adam, but because of the individual 
ffinM of A'lam*H |««'jirtf^rlty. Pflcldcrer, Grundriss, 123— ** Sin is a direction of the will 
which r^intra^Ucts the moral Idea. As precedinjr personal acts of the will, it is not 
|K;rw;rud ffuUt but lmijerfe<.tlon or evil. When it persists in spite of awakinff moral 
rxifiwrloiMncMi, and by indulgr^nee bccr>me habit, it is grullty abnormity." 

To tlio New iichtxA theory we object as follows : 

A. It cr^ntnulictH Scripture in maintaining or implying: (a) That sin 
OffUHinin Holc.'ly in acts, and in the dispositions eansed in each case by man's 
individiuil ocIh, and that the state which predisposes to acts of sin is not 
itwslf Hin. (h ) Tluit the vitiosity which predisposes to sin is a part of each 
'8 nature as it proceeds from the creative hand of Qod. (c) That 




KBW SCHOOL THEORY OP IMPUTATION. 609 

physical death in the humau race Ib not a peual consequence of Adam's 
transgression. ( d ) That infants, l)eforo moral consciousness, do not need 
Christ's sacrifice to save them. Since they are innocent, no penalty rests 
upon them, and none needs to be removed, (e) That we are neither 
condemned upon the ground of actual inbeing in Adam, nor justified upon 
the ground of actual inbeing in Christ. 

If a child may not be uDholy before be voluntarily traoflgreaBes, then, by parity of 
reasoninfir, Adam could Dot have been holy before he obeyed the law, nor can a change 
of heart precede Christian action. New School principles would compel us to assert 
that right action precedes change of heart, and that obedience In Adam must have 
preceded his holiness. Emmons held that, if children die before they become moral 
aircnts, it is most rational to conclude that they are annihilated. They are mere 
animals. The common New School doctrine would regard them as saved either on 
account of their innocence, or because the atonement of Christ avails to remove the 
eoiucciuences as well as the penalty of sin. 

But to say that infants are pure contradicts Ron. 5 : 12 —"all limud " ; 1 Oor. 7 : 14« " tlie wtn 
joor ckildrBa andeui *' ; IpL 2 : 3 — " bj lutara childnn of vnth." That Christ's atonement removes 
natural consequences of sin is nowhere asserted or implied in Scripture. See, per 
contra, H. B. Smith, S}-8tcm, 271, where, however, it is only maintained that Christ saves 
from all the Just consequences of sin. But all Jiut consequences are penalty, and should 
be so called. The exigencies of New School doctrine compel it to put the beginning of 
sin in the infant at the very first moment of its separate existence,— in order not to 
contradict those Scriptures which speak of sin as being universal, and of the atonement 
as being needed by all. Dr. Park held that infants sin so soon as they arc born. He 
was obliged to hold this, or else to say that some members of the human race exist who 
ore not sinners. But by putting sin thus early in human experience, all meaning is 
taken out of the New School definition of sin as the *' voluntary transgression of known 
law." It is dilBcult to say, upon this theory, what sort of a choice the infant makes of 
sin, or what sort of a kiiotcn law it violates. 

The first need in a theory of sin is that of satisfying the statements of 'Scripture. 
The second need is that it should point out an act of man which will justify the infiio- 
tion of pain, suffering, and death upon the whole human race. Our moral sense refuses 
to accept the conclusion that all this is a matter of arbitrary sovereignty. We cannot 
find the act in each man's conscious transgression, nor in sin committed at birth. We 
do find such a voluntary transgression of known law in Adam ; and we claim that the 
New School definition of sin is much more consistent with this last explanation of sin's 
origin than is the theory of a multitude of individual transgressions. 

The final test of every theory, however, is its conformity to Scripture. We claim that 
a false philosophy prevents the advocates of New School doctrine from understanding 
the utterances of Paul. Their philosophy is a modified survival of atomistic Pelagian- 
ism. They ignore nature in both God and man, and resolve character into transient 
acts. The unconscious or subconscious state of the will they take little or no account 
of, and the possibility of another and higher life interpenetrating and transforming 
our own life is seldom present to their minds. They have no proper idea of the union 
of the believer with Christ, and so they have no proper idea of the union of the race 
with Adam. They necnl to Icam that, as all the spiritual life of the race was in Christ, 
the second Adam, so all the natural life of the race was in the first Adam ; as we derive 
righteousness from the former, so we derive corruption from the latter. Because 
Christ's life is in them, Paul can say that all believers rose in Christ's resurrection ; 
because Adam's life is in them, he can say that in Adam all die. We should prefer to 
say with Ptieiderer that Paul teaches this doctrine but that Paul is no authority for us, 
rather than to profess acceptance of Paul's teaching while we ingeniously evade the 
force of his argument. We agree with Stevens, Pauline Theology, 135, 136, that all men 
** sinned in the same sense in which believers were crucified to the world and died 
unto sin when Christ died upon the cross." But we protest that to make Christ's 
death the mere occwston of the death of the believer, and Adam's sin the mere occasion 
of the sins of men, is to ignore the central truths of Paul's teaching — the vital union of 
the believer with Christ, and the vital union of the race with Adam. 

B. It rests upon false philosophical principles, as for example : ( a ) That 
the soul is immediately created by God. (b) That the law of Gknl consists 

39 



610 ANTHBOPOLOGY, OB THE DOCTBUTE OF XAV. 

wholly in cmtward oommand. ( c ) That present natural ability to obey the 
law i8 the measure of obligation, (d) That man's relations to moral law 
are excliudyely individnaL (e) That the will is merely the faculty of indi- 
Tidnal and personal choices. (/) That the will, at man's birth, >!*« no 
moral state or character. 

See Baird, Elohim Revealed, 250 w/.— ** Peraonality is inseparable from nature. Tbo 
one duty Is love. UnleaB any given duty is performed through the activity of a prfnoi* 
pic tft love springing up in the nature, it is not performed at alL The law addrema the 
mUure. The efficient cause of moral action is the proper subject of moral law. It to 
only in -ttie perversity of unscriptural theology that we find the absurdity of separating 
the moral character from the substance of the soul, and tying it to the vanishing deeds 
of life. The idea that responsibility and sin are predicable of actions merely Is only 
consistent with an utter denial that man's nature as such owes anything to QoA, or 
has an office to perform in showing forth his glory. It ignores the fact that actions are 
empty phenomena, which in themselves have no possible value. It is the heart, soul, 
might, mind, strength, with which we are to love. Christ conformed to the law, by 
being ' tkAt kolj thiog ' ( Ukt 1 : 35, marg.)." 

Erroneous philosophical principles lie at the basis of New School interpretattoi« of 
Scripture. The solidarity of the race is ignored, and all moral action is held to be Indi- 
vidual. In our discussion of the Augustinian theory of sin, we shall hope to show that 
underlying Paul's doctrine there is quite another philosophy. Such a philosophy 
together with a deeper Christian experience would have corrected the following state- 
ment of Paul's view of sin, by Orello Cone, in Am. Jour. Theology, April, 1896 : 241-287. 
On the phrase Ron. 5 : 12— " Ibr that all nnnad," he remarks : ** If under the new order men do 
not become righti'ous simply because of the righteousness of Christ and without their 
choice, neither under the old order did Paul think them to be subject to death without 
their own acts of sin. Each representative head is conceived only as the occasion of the 
results of his work, on the one hand in the tragic order of death, and on the other hand in 
the blessed order of life— the occasion indispensable to all that follows In either order. 
... It may be f]uestloned whether Pfleidercr does not state the case too strongly when 
he sas^s that the sin of Adam's posterity is regarded as * the necessary consequence * of 
the sin of Adam. It does not follow from the employment of the aorist nt^oftrop that the 
sinning of all Is contained in that of Adam, although this sense must be considered as 
grammatically possible. It is not however the only grammatically defensible sense. In 
Ron. 8 : 23, nfiafiTov certainly does not denote such a definite past act filling only one point 
of time.'* But we reply that the context determines that in Ron. 5 : 12, ^/mopro^ docs denote 
fuoh a definite past act ; see our interpretation of the whole passage, under the Augus- 
tinian Theory, pages 625-087. 

0. It impugns the justice of Ood : 

( a ) By regarding him as the direct creator of a vicious natore which 
infalliblj leads every human being into actual transgression. To n^ftin fai^n 
that, in consequence of Adam's act, God brings it about that all men 
become sinners, and this, not by virtue of inherent laws of propagation, 
but by the direct creation in each case of a vicious nature, is to make Gkxl 
indirectiy the author of sin. 

{h) By representing him as the inflicter of sufifering and death npon 
millions of human beings who in the present life do not come to moral 
consciousness, and who are therefore, according to the theory, perfectiy 
innocent. This is to make him visit Adam's sin on his posterity, while at 
the same time it denies that moral connection between Adam and his pos- 
terity which alone could make such visitation just 

( c ) By holding tiiat the probation which God appoints to men is a sepa- 
rate probation of each soul, when it first comes to moral consciousness and 
is least qualified to decide aright. It is much more consonant with our 
ideas of the divine justice that the decision should have been made by tne 




KBW SCHOOL THEORY OF IMPUTATION. 611 

whole race, in one whose nature was x>ure and who perfectly nnderstood 
God's law, than that heaven and hell should have been determined for each 
of us by a decision made in our own inexperienced childhood, imder the 
influence of a vitiated nature. 

On thJfl theory, God determines, in his mere sovereignty, that because one man sinned, 
all men should be called into existence depraved, under a constitution which secures 
the certainty of their sinning. But wo claim that it is unjust that any should suffer 
without ill-desert. To say that God thus marks his sense of the guilt of Adam's sin 
is to contradict the main principle of the theory, namely, that men are held responsible 
only for their own sins. We prefer to Justify God by holding that there is a reason for 
this infliction, and that this reason is the connection of the infant with Adam. If mere 
tendency to sin is innocent, then Christ might have taken it, when he took our nature. 
But if he had taken it, it would not explain the fact of the atonement, for upon this 
theory it would not need to be atoned for. To say that the child inherits a sinful 
natui^, not as penalty, but by natural law, is to ignore the fact that this natural law is 
simply the regular action of Gkxi, the expression of his moral nature, and so is itself 
penalty. 

" Man kills a snake," says Raymond, ** because It is a snake, and not because It is to 
blame for being a snake,"— which seems to us a new proof that the advocates of inno- 
cent depravity regard infants, not as moral beings, but as mere animals. *' We must 
distinguish automatic excellence or badness,*' says Raymond again, *' from moral desert, 
whether good or ill." This seems to us a doctrine of punishment without guilt. Prince- 
ton Essays, 1 : 138, quote Coleridge : ** It is an outrage on common sense to affirm that 
it is no evil for men to bo placed on their probation under such circumstances that not 
one of ten thousand millions ever escapes sin and condcnmation to eternal death. 
There is evil inflicted on us, as a consequence of Adam's sin, antecedent to our personal 
transgressions. It matters not what this evil is, whether tem]M)ral death, corruption of 
nature, certainty of sin, or death in its more extended sense ; if the ground of the evil's 
coming on us is Adam's sin, the principle is the same." Baird, Elohim Revealed, 488— 
So, it seems, ** if a creature is punished, it implies that some one has sinned, but does 
not necessarily intimate the sufferer to be the sinner I But this is wholly contrary to 
the argument of the apostle in Kom. 5 : 12-19, which is based upon the opposite doctrine, 
and it Is also contrary to the Justice of God, who punishes only those who deserve it." 
See Julius MtUlor, Doct. Sin, 2 : 61-7L 

D. Its limitation of responsibility to the evil choices of the individual 
and the dispositions caused thereby is inconsistent with the following facts : 

(a ) The first moral choice of each individual is so undeliberate as not 
to be remembered. Put forth at birth, as the chief advocates of the New 
School theory maintain, it does not answer to their definition of sin as a 
voluntary transgression of known law. Responsibility for such choice does 
not differ from responsibility for the inborn evil state of the will which 
manifests itself in that choice. 

( & ) The uniformity of sinful action among men cannot be explained 
by the existence of a mere faculty of choices. That men should uniformly 
choose may be thus explained ; but that men should unifonnly choose evil 
requires us to postulate an evil tendency or state of the will itself, prior to 
these separate acts of choice. This evil tendency or inborn determination 
to evil, since it is the real cause of actual sins, must itself be sin, and as 
such must be guilty and condemnable. 

( c ) Power in the will to prevent the inborn vitiosity from developing 
itself is upon this theory a necessary condition of responsibility for actual 
sins. But the absolute uniformity of actual transgression is evidence that the 
will is practically impotent If resxx)nsibility diminishes as the difficulties 
in the way of free dedsion increase, the fact that these difficulties are insu- 



612 ANTHBOPOLOGY, OR THE DOCTRINE OF HAJT. 

perable shows that there can be no responsibility at alL To deny the g^nilft 
of inborn sin is therefore virtually to deny the guilt of the actual sin which 
springs therefrom. 

The aim of all the theories is to find a decision of the will which will Justify Qod in 
condemniDiT men. Where shall we find such a decision ? At the a^ of fifteen, ten, five ? 
Then all who die before this age are not sinners, cannot Justly be punished with death, 
do not need a Savior. Is it at birth ? But decision at such a time is not such a conscious 
decision aerainst God as, according to this theory, would make it the proper deter- 
miner of our future destiny. We claim that the theory of Auflrustinc ~ that of a sin of 
the race in Adam — is the only one that shows a conscious transflrreasion fit to be the 
cause and srround of mui's flruilt and condemnation. 

Wm. Adams Brown : ** Who can tell hovr far his own acts are caused by his own wlU, 
and how far by the nature he has inherited ? Men do feel gruilty for acts which are 
lartrcly due to their inherited natures, which inherited corruption is guilt, deserving 
of punishment and certain to receive it." H. B. Smith, System, 8S0,note— **It has 
been said, in the way of a taunt against the older theology, that men are very willing 
to speculate about sinning in Adam, so as to have their attention diverted from the 
sense of personal guilt. But the whole history of theology bears witness that those 
who have believed most fully in our native and strictly moral corruption— as 
Augustine, Calvin, and Edwards— have ever had the deepest sense of their personal 
demerit. We know the full evil of sin only when we know its roots as well as its fruits." 

'* Causa caustt! est causa causati." Inborn depravity is the cause of the first actual 
sin. The cause of inborn depravity is the sin of Adam. If there be no guilt in original 
sin, then the actual sin that springs therefrom cannot be guilty. There are subsequent 
presumptuous sins in which the personal element overbears the element of race and 
heredity. But this cannot be said of the first acts which make man a sinner. These are 
so naturally and uniformly the result of the inborn determination of the will, that they 
auinot be guilt}', unless that inborn determination is also guilty. In short, not all sin Is 
personaL There must be a sin of nature — a race-sin — or the beginnings of actual sin 
cannot be accounted for or regard<'d afl objects of God's condemnation. Julius Mtlller, 
Doctrine of Sin, 2 : ^20-328, d41 — '' If the deep-rooted depravity which we bring with us 
into the world bo not our sin, it at once becomes an excuse for our actual sins.** Prince- 
ton Essays, 1 : 138, 130— Alternative : 1. May a man by his own power prevent the devel- 
opment of this hereditary depravity ? Then wo do not know that all men arc sinners, 
or that Christ's salvation is needed by all. 2. Is actual sin a necessary consequence of 
hereditary depravity ? Then it is, on this theory, a free act no longer, and is not guilty, 
since guilt is prodicable only of voluntary transgrression of known law. See Baird, 
Elohim Revealed, 256 sq.: Hodge, Essays, 671-633; Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 2:61-78; 
Edwards on the Will, part ill, sec. 4 ; Bib. Sac, 20 : 817-320. 

4. T?ie Federal Theory, or Theory of Condemnation by Covenant 

The Federal theory, or theory of the Covenants, had its origin with 
Oocceius (1603-1669), professor at Ley den, but was more fully elaborated 
by Turretin (1623-1687). It has become a tenet of the Reformed as 
distinguished from the Lutheran church, and in this country it has its main 
advocates in the Princeton school of theologians, of whom Dr. CharleB 
Hodge was the representative. 

According to this view, Adam was constituted by God's sovereign appoint- 
ment the representative of the whole himian race. With Adam as their 
representative, God entered into covenant, agreeing to bestow upon them 
eternal life on condition of his obedience, but making the penalty of his 
disobedience to be the corruption and death of all his posterity. In accord- 
ance with the terms of this covenant, since Adam sinned, God accounts all 
his descendants as sinners, and condemns them because of Adam's trans- 
gpression. 

In execution of this sentence of condemnation, God immediately creates 
■ool of Adam's posterity with a corrupt and depraved nature, which 




FEDERAL THEORY OF IMPCTTATION. 618 

infallibly leads to sin, and which is itself sin. The theory is therefore a 
theory of the immediate imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, their 
oormption of nature not being the cause of that imputation, but the effect 
of it In Bom. 5 : 12, " death passed unto aU men, for that aU sinned," 
signifies : ''physical, spiritual, and eternal death came to all, because all 
were regarded and treated as sinners." 

Fisher, Disouasions, 855-109, oompares the Au^ustinian and Federal theories of Orl^rl- 
nal Sin. His account of the Federal theory and Its ori^rin is Bubstantially as follows : 
The Federal theory is a theory of the covenants {fcedus^ a covenant ). 1, The covenant 
is a sovereign constitution imposed by Gk)d. 2. Federal union is the legal ground of 
imputation, though kinship to Adam is the reason why Adaui and not another was 
selected as our representative. 3. Our guilt for Adam*s sin is simply a legal responsi- 
bility. 4. That imputed sin is punished by inborn depravity, and that inborn depravity 
by eternal death. Augustine could not reconcile inherent depravity with the Justice 
of God ; hence he held that we sinned in Adam. 

So Anselm says : ** Because the whole human nature was in them ( Adam and Eve), 
and outside of them there was nothing of it, the whole was weakened and corrupted." 
After the first sin " this nature was propagated Just as it had made itself by sinning." 
All sin belongs to the will ; but this is a part of our inheritance. The descendants of 
Adam were not in him as individuals ; yet what he did as a person, he did not do 8tne 
ncLtura^ and this nature is ours as well as his. So Peter Lombard. Sins of our immedi- 
ate ancestors, because they are qualities which are purely personal, are not propagated. 
After Adam's first sin, the actual qualities of the first parent or of other later parents 
do not corrupt the nature as concerns its qualities, but only as concerns the qualities 
of the person. 

Calvin maintained two propositions : 1. We are not condemned for Adam's sin apart 
from our own inherent depravity which is derived from him. The sin for which we 
are condemned is our own sin. 2. This sin is ours, for the reason that our nature is 
vitiated in Adam, and we receive it in the condition in which it was put by the first 
transgression. Melanchthon also held to an imputation of the first sin conditioned upon 
our innate depravity. The impulse to Federalism was given by the difficulty, on the 
pure Augustinian theory, of accounting for the non-imputation of Adam's subsequent 
sins, and those of his posterity. 

Ckx;ceius (Dutch, Coch: English, Ck)ok), the author of the covenant-theory, con- 
ceived that he had solved this difficulty by making Adam's sin to be imputed to us 
apon the ground of a covenant between Ood and Adam, according to which Adam was 
to stand as the representative of his posterity. In Coccelus's use of the term, however, 
the only difference between covenant and command is found in the promise attached 
to the keeping of it. Fisher remarks on the mistake, in modem defenders of impu- 
tation, of ignoring the capital fact of a true and real participation in Adam's sin. 
The great body of Calvinistic theologians in the 17th century were Augustinians as 
well as Federalists. So Owen and the Westminster Confession. Turrctin, however, 
almost merged the natural relation to Adam in the federal. 

Edwards fell back on the old doctrine of Aquinas and Augustine. He tried to make 
out a real participation in the first sin. The first rising of sinful inclination, by a 
divinely constituted identity, is this participation. But Hopkins and Emmons regarded 
the sinful inclination, not as a real participation, but only as a conBtructive consent to 
Adam's first sin. Hence the New School theology, in which the imputation of Adam's 
sin was given up. On the contrary, Calvinists of the Princeton school planted them- 
selves on the Federal theory, and taking Turretin as their text book, waged war on 
New England views, not wholly sparing Edwards himself. After this review of the 
origin of the theory, for which we are mainly indebted to Fisher, it can be easily seen 
how little show of truth there is in the assumption of the Princeton theologians that 
the Federal theory is ** the immemorial doctrine of the church of God." 

Statements of the theory are found in Coccelus, Summa Doctrinae de FcBdere, cap. 
1, 5 ; Turretin, Inst., loc. 9, quees. 9 ; Princeton Essays, 1 : 98-185, esp. 120 — " In imputa- 
tion there is, first, an ascription of something to those concerned ; secondly, a determi- 
nation to deal with them accordingly." The ground for this imputation is ** the union 
between Adam and his posterity, which is twofold,— a natural unfon, as between father 
and children, and the union of representation, which is the main idea here iimisted on,** 
128— **A8 in Christ we are oonstitutcd righteous by the imputation of righteousnessi so 



614 ANTHROPOLOGY, OR THB DOCTRINE OF MAH. 

in Adam we are made sinnen by tho imputation of hia sin. .... Guilt ia liability or 
expoeednoas to punishment; it does not in theoloirioal usacre imply moral turpitude 
or criminality.*' 163 — Turretin is quoted : ** The foundation, therefore, of imputatloo 
is not merely the natMral oonneotlon which exists between us and Adam — for, weie 
this the case, all his sins would be imputed to us, but principally the moral tLud federal, 
on the ground of which Ood entered into covenant with him as our head. Hcnoe in 
that sin Adam acted not as a private but a public person and representative.'* Tht- 
oneness results from contract ; the natural union is frequently not mentioned at aU. 
Marck : All men sinned In Adam, ** eo8 representante," The acts of Adam and of Christ 
are ours "Jure representcUionU." 

G. W. Northrup makes the order of the Federal theory to be : *' ( 1 ) imputation of 
Adam's ffuilt ; (2) condemnation on the ^ound of this Imputed RUilt ; (3) corruption 
of nature consequent upon treatment as condemned. So Judicial imputation of 

Adam's sin is the cause and frround of innate corruption All the acts, with the 

sinifle exception of the sin of Adam, are divine acts : the appointment of Adam, the 
creation of his descendants, the imputation of his guilt, the condemnation of his pos- 
terity, their consequent corruption. Here wo have guilt without sin, exposure to 
divine wrath without ill-desert, God regarding men as being what they are not, pun- 
ishing them on the ground of a sin committed before they existed, and visitinjr tliem 
with gratuitous condemnation and gratuitous reprobation. Here are arbitrary repre> 
sentation, fictitious imputation, constructive guilt, limited atonement." The Pnesb. 
Rev., Jan. 1888 : 30, claims that Kloppenburg ( 1642 ) preceded Cocoelus ( 1648 ) in holding 
to the theory of the Covenants, as did also tho Canons of Dort. For additional state* 
ments of Federalism, see Hodge, Enays, 49-86, and Syst. TheoL, 2 : 192-204; Bib. Sao., 
21 : «h107; Cunningham, Historical Theology. 

To the Federal theory we object : 

A. It is extra-Scriptiiral, there being no mention of snoh a oovenant 
with Adam in the account of man's triaL The assumed allusion to Adam's 
apostasy in Hosoa 6 : 7, where the word " covenant " is used, is too preca- 
rious and too obviously metaphorical to afford the basis for a scheme of 
imputation (see Henderson, Com. on Minor Prophets, in loco). In Heb. 
8 :8 — "new covenant" — there is suggested a contrast^ not with an 
Adamio, but with the Mosaic, covenant ( c/. yerse 9 ). 

In loMt 6:7 — "thcj like idun [ marg. ' in«a ' ] )»?• trugraaaed the ooTount** (Rev. Ver.) — the 
correct transhition is given by Henderson, Minor Prophets: "But thi j, like ima tkat taraak a 
eeTcnant, then thej proTed false to me.** LXX ; avrol U tiaiv in a^dpuvof wa(Mfi^r*»v iim&ix^w, 
De Wette : **Aber sie Ubertreten den Bund nach Menschenart ; daselhst sind sie mir 
troulos.** Here the word adarn^ translated " man," either means " a man,** or •' man," 
i, r., generic man. " Israel had as little regard to their covenants with God as men of 
unprincipled cliaracter have for ordinary contracts,** "Like a man "—as men do. 
Conipiiro Pi. 82:7 — "ye ihall die like men"; EeeeaStl.S— *'thej hare tranigreaed bj eonuat**— an 
alluHion to the Abnihamic or Mosaic covenant. Heb. 8 : 9— "Behold, the dayi eome, ■!& the lerd, 
thit I will make a nev eoTenant vith the hooae of Israel and with the honae of Jndah ; Hot aeearding to the ooiTfaaBt 
that I made with their fathen In the daj that I took them bj the hand to lead them forth oat of the land of iKTfi" 

15. It contradicts Scripture, in making the first result of Adam*s sin to 
bo iUnVn nyaniifu/ and treating the race as sinners. The Scriijtnre, on 
\\\o contrary, di>i*laros that Ailam's oflfcnse constituted us sinners ( Bom. 5 : 
i\) ). Wo are not sinners simply because Ood regards and treats us as 
HUfli, but ( Jod rof^irtbi us as sinners l>ocau8e wo are sinners. Death is said 
to liuvo '* piiHHed unto all men," not because all were regarded and treated 
as Hiiinons but **bocauso all sinned " { Rom. 5 : 12 ). 

For It full oxeinviR of the pamagi* hm. 5 : 18-1«. see note to the discussiOQ of the Theory 
of AilAiu'it NatunU HcndHhip, i^HKes 02f»-«-7. Dr. Park gave great oftenoe by saying 
timt I he mi-txHlUnl »» oovenantu " of law and of grace, referred in the Westminster Oonfes- 
iluu as made liy nml with Adam andniriat rosiHHitively, werv really " made in HoUand."* 
word /urdiM, in mmh n cunuectiou« could properly mjan nothing more than **ordi* 




FEDERAL THEORY OF IMPUTATION. 615 

nanoe'*: see Ver^U Geonrios, 1 :6(MB — "oterna foedera." R G. Robinson, Christ. 
Theol., 195— ''God's * covenant' with mon is simply his method of dealing with them 
aocording to their knowledge and opportunities/* 



xjonung lo uieir Knowledge aau uppon>uiubi«B. 

0. It impngns the justice of Qod by implying : 



(a) That God holds men responsible for the violation of a covenant 
which they had no part in establishing. The assumed covenant is only a 
sovereign decree ; the assumed justice, only arbitrary wiU. 

We not only never authorized Adam to make such a covenant, but there is no evi- 
dence that he ever made one at all. It is not even certain that Adam knew he should 
have posterity. In the case of the imputation of our sins to Christ, Christ covenanted 
voluntarily to bear them, and Joined himself to our nature that he might bear them. 
In the case of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us, we first become one with 
Christ, and upon the ground of our union with him arc Justified. But upon the Federal 
theory, we are condemned upon the ground of a covenant which wo neither instituted, 
nor participated in, nor assented to. 

(b) That upon the basis of this covenant Gbd accounts men as sinners 
who are not sinners. But Gk)d judges according to truth. His condemna- 
tions do not proceed upon a basis of legal fiction. He can regard as 
responsible for Adam's transgression only those who in some real sense 
have been concerned, and have had part, in that transgression. 

See Baird, Elohim Revealed, 544 —*' Here is a sin, which is no crime, but a mere condi- 
tion of being regarded and treated as sinners ; and a guilt, which is devoid of sinful- 
ness, and which docs not imply moral demerit or turpitude,"— that is, a sin which is no 
sin, and a guilt which is no guilt. Why might not God as Justly reckon Adam's sin to 
the account of the fallen angels, and punish them for it? Domcr, System Doct., 2 : 361 ; 
8:53,&4— '*Hollaz held that God treats men in accordance with what he foresaw all 
would do, if they were In Adam's place " (acientta media and imputatio metaphytsUa ). 
Birks, Difficulties of Belief, 141 — "Immediate imputation is as unjust as imputatio 
metaphusicc^ i. e., God's condemning us for what he knew we would have done in Adam's 
place. On such a theory there is no need of a trial at all. God might condemn half 
the race at once to hell without probation, on the ground that they would ultimately 
sin and come thither at any rate." Justification can be gratuitous, but not condem- 
nation. *' Like the sodal-compaot theory of government, the covenant-theory of sin is 
a mere legal fiction. It explains, only to belittle. The theory of New England theol- 
ogy, which attributes to mere sovereignty God's making us sinners in consequence of 
Adam's sin, is more reasonable than the FMeral theory " ( Fisher). 

Professor Moses Stuart characterized this theory as one of ** fictitious guilt, but veri- 
table daranation." The divine economy admits of no fictitious substitutions nor foren- 
sic evasions. No legal quibbles can modify eternal Justice. Federalism reverses the 
proper order, and puts the effect before the cause, as is the case with the social-com- 
pact theory of government. Ritchie, Darwin and Hegel, 27 — " It is illogical to say 
that society originated in a contract ; for contract presupposes society." Unus homo, 
nuUus homo~ without society, no persons. T. H. Green, Prolegomena to Ethics, 351— 
** No individual can make a conscience for himself. He always needs a society to make 
it for him. . . , 200— Only through society is personality actualized." Royce, Spirit of 
Modern Philosophy, 209, note—*' Organic interrelationship of individuals is the condi- 
tion even of their relatively independent selfhood." We are "memben one (tf another" ( Rom. 
12 : IS ). Schurman, Agnosticism, 176—" The individual could never have developed into 
a personality but for his training through society and under law." Imagine a theory 
that the family originated in a compact I Wo must not define the state by its first 
crude beginnings, any more than we define the oak by the acorn. On the theory of a 
flocial-compact, see Lowell, Essays on Government, I3&-188. 

( c) That, after accounting men to be sinners who are not sinners, Qod 
makes them sinners by immediately creating each human soul with a cor- 
rupt nature such as will correspond to his decree. This is not only to 
assume a false view of the origin of the soul, but also to make GKkL directly 



616 A5THBOPOU>GT, OB THE DOCTRISE OF ILLS. 

the sotlMDT of nn. Impatetion of sin canziat precede mud aecount for eoar- 
niptu>n ; on the oontniTy oormption miut preeede sod aeeoont for inqia- 



By OfA'% act we became depvmred, aia penal coomtiijxaot of Adam's act impiited to 
OftrAdjaipeeeatiuiiaUciitim. Daboer, Tfaeok)C7. )C, mjns the thecrj reyafdi the aool 
aiMlciiialljpiirB until imputatkm. See Hodge on Ijb. S . 3 : Sjis. TbeoL« 2 : aB. 210 ; 
Thornwell, Tbeokvj. 1 : ZtA-9m; Cbalmen. Inttitatca. 1 : 4m. tf7. The Federal theoiy 
** makca ixn in at to be the penalty of another^* nn, instead of beinr the penaltjr of onr 
own tin, ai on the AoffiutinSan scheme, which r eg a r ds depraritr in us as the pcmish* 
ment of oar own sin in Adam. ... It holds to a an which d^^es not brinff eternal pun* 
Isfament, but for which we are tegall j responsible as tmlj- as Adam.*' It onlj remains 
to aaj that Dr. H'jdge always persistently refosed to admit the one added element 
which might have made his view kas arbitrary and mechanical, namely, the tradncian 
theory <jt the origin of the souL He wasa creasiantet, and to the end maintained that 
G<td immediat#;iy created the aoul, and created it deprsred. Acceptance of the tradn- 
cian therjry would have oompeUed him to exchange his Fc^leralism for Augrustinianlsm. 
Creatianism was the one remaining element of Pelagian atomism in an otherwin 
fkiriptural tberiry. Yet Dr. Hodge regarded this as an easential part of Biblical teach- 
ing. His unwavering confidence was like that of Fichte, whom Osroline ScheUlng 
reprevrnted as saying: **Zweifle an der Sonne Klarheit, Zwcifle an der Stenie licht, 
lAH^-.T, nur an meiner Wahrbeit Tod an deiner Dummheit, nicht." 

As a corrective U> the atomi#tic spirit of Federalism we may quote a Tfew which 
aKrms to us far more tenable, though it perhaps goes to the opposite extreme. Dr. 
H. H. Bawden writes: **The self is the product of a social environment. An ascetic 
self is vt far forth not a self, gelfho^jd and consdousaess are essentially sociaL We are 
members one of anothf^. The biological view of selfhood regards it as a fonction, 
activity, process, inseparable from the social matrix out of which it has arisen. Con- 
sciotjsness is simply the name for the functioning of an organism. Not that the soul is 
a secretion of the brain, as bile is a secretion of the liver ; not that the mind is a funo- 
tlon of the txyly in any such materialistic sense. But that mind or consciousness Is 
only ttic growing of an organism, while, on the other hand, the organism is Just that 
which grows. The psychical is not a second, subtle, parallel form of energy causally 
Interactive with the physical ; much less is it a concomitant scries, as the parallelists 
hokl. Consciousness is not an order of existence or a thing, but rather a function. It 
Is the organizati^m of nAiity, the universe coming to a focus, flowering, so to speak, in 
a finite centre. 8oci(.'ty is an organism in the same sense as the human body. The sep- 
aration of the units of socifty is no greater than the separation of the unit factors of 
the bfjdy, — In the micrrjscr>pe the molecules are far apart. Society is a great sphere 
with many smallfrr spheres within it. 

** Each self Is not imi>er\iou8 to other selves. Selves are not water-tight compart- 
ments, each one of which might remain complete in itself, even if all the others were 
destroy(.*d. But there are o|M;n sluiceways between all the compartments. Society is a 
vast plexus of interweaving personalities. We are members one of another. What 
affects my neighlx>r affects me, and what affects me ultimately affects my neighbor. 
The individual is not an imfonetrable atomic unit. . . . The self is simply the social 
whole r;omiiig to consciousness at some particular point. Every self is rooted In the 
Sfjclal orgttfiism r>f which it is but a local and iDdi\idual expression. A self is a mere 
clplu;r aiiart from its 8^>ciul relations. As the old Oreek adage has it: 'He who lives 
quite alfHie is fit \wr a beast or a gf>d.' ** While we regard this exposition of Dr. Baw- 
den lis throwing light \\\Hm the origin of consciousness and so helping our contention 
agfiinKt the F«*rk'ral theory of sin, we do not regard It as proving that consciousness, 
onr^ devoloiwl, may not liecome relatively independent and immortal. Back of 
society, as well as back of the indi\iduHl, lies the consciousness and willof Ood, in 
whniii hIoiu* Is th(> guarantee of persistence. For objections to the Federal theory, see 
FIsIht, Dimnissions, 401 »r/.; Bib. Sac SO : 455-402, 577; New Englandcr, 1868:661-1)08; 
Iliilrrl, Elrihim Itijvoaltid, 806-334, 435-460; Julius MUUer, Doct. Sin, 2:336; Dabney, 
Th<M>logy, :M1-351. 

5. Tfy.orf/ of Mediate Imputation, or Theory of Condemnation for 
Dfipravitf/, 

This theory was first inamtained by Placous ( 160G-1655), professor of 




THEORY OF MEDIATE IMPUTATION. 617 

Theology at Samnnr in France. Plaoens originally denied that Adam's sin 
was in any sense imputed to his posterity, but after his doctrine was con- 
demned by the Synod of the French Reformed Church at Charenton in 
1644, he published the yiew which now bears his name. 

According to this yiew, all men are bom physically and morally depraved ; 
this native depravity is the source of all actual sin, and is itself sin ; in 
strietness of sx)eech, it is this native depravity, and this only, which God 
imputes to men. So far as man's physical nature is concerned, this inborn 
smf ulncss has descended by natural laws of propagation from Adam to all 
his posterity. The soul is immediately created by God, but it becomes 
actively corrupt so soon as it is united to the body. Inborn sinfulness is 
the consequence, though not the penalty, of Adam's transgression. 

There is a sense, therefore, in which Adam's sin may be said to be im- 
puted to his descendants, — it is im^mted, not immediately, as if they had 
been in Adam or were so rej^resented in him that it could be charged 
directly to them, corrux^tion not intervening, — but it is imputed mediately, 
through and on account of the intervening corruption which resulted from 
Adam's sin. As on the Federal theory imputation is the cause of depravity, 
so on this theory depravity is the cause of imputation. In Bom. 5 : 12, 
*' death passed unto all men, for that all sinned," signifies : " death physi- 
cal, spiritual, and eternal i^assed upon all men, because all sinned by pos- 
sessing a depraved nature." 

See Placeu8« De Imputatione Priml Peccati Adami, in Opera, 1 : 700— ^' The sensitive 
soul is produced from the parent ; the Intellectual or rational soul is directly created. 
The 80ul« on entering the corrupted physical nature, is not passively corrupted, but 
becomes corrupt actively, accommodating itself to the otlier part of human nature in 
character.*' 710— So this soul ** contracts from the vitiosity of the dispositions of the 
body a corresponding vitiosity, not so much by the action of tlie body upon the soul, as 
by that essential appetite of the soul by which it unities it«elf to the body in a way 
accommodated to the dispositions of the body, as liquid put into a bowl accommodates 
itself to the figure of a bowl — sicut vinum in vase acetoso. God was therefore 
neither the author of Adam's fall, nor of the propagation of sin.'* 

Herzog, Bncyclopsedle, art. : Placeus — ** In the title of his works we read * Placeeus * ; 
he himself, however, wrote * Placeus,' which is the more correct Latin form [ of the 
French * de la Place ' ]. In Adam's first sin, Plact>us distinguished between the actual 
Binning and the first habitual sin ( corrupted disposition ). The former was transient ; 
the latter clung to his person, and was propagated to all. It is truly sin, and it is impu- 
ted to all, since it makes all condemnable. Placeus believes in the imputation of this 
corrupted disposition, but not in the imputation of the first act of Adam, except medi- 
ately, through the imputation of th<! inherited depravity." Fisher, Discussions, 389— 
" Mere native corruption is the whole of original sin. Placeus justifies his use of the 
term * imputation ' by Kont 2 : 26 — 'If therefore the ancirsajneisioii keep the ordinances of the kw, ghall not 
his nndRomciBion be reckoned [ imputed ] for circumcision 7 ' Our own depravity is the necessary 
condition of the imputation of Adam's sin, Just as our own faith is the necessary con- 
dition of the imputation of Christ*s righteousneps." 

Advocates of Mediate Imputation are, in Great Britain, G. Pasme, in his book 
entitled : Original Sin ; John Caird, Fund. Ideas of Christianity, 1 : 19&-232 ; and James 
B. Candlish, Biblical Doctrine of Sin, 111-12S; in America, H. B. Smith, in his System of 
Christian Doctrine, 169, 284, 285. 814-323 ; and E. O. Robinson. Christian Theology. The 
editor of Dr. Smith's work says : ** On the whole, he favored the theory of Mediate 
Imputation. There is a note which reads thus : * Neither Mediate nor Immediate Impu- 
tation is wholly satisfactory.' Understand by * Mediate Imputation ' a full statement 
of the facts in the case, and the author accepted it ; understand by it a theory profess- 
ing to give the final explanation of the facts, and it was * not wholly satisfactory.* '• 
Dr. Smith himself says, 316—'* Original sin is a doctrine respecting the moral conditions 
of human nature as from Adam — generic : and it is not a doctrine respecting personal 



616 ASTHBOFOIOGT, OB THE DOCTRIXE OF ILkS, 



liB.l«Ditj»BiMldeKfrt. For the laner, ire neirf more and atber cairxao LU Ms m . Strictly 
ttp»3hJLU3^. H ii XK>t siiL wlikit ii iU- ^ t mmi Dg. bet nalj ifae tanner. The ultimate diMioo> 
ti'.ij !•> i«n^ : lliere » a veU-^rcmnded diflcrecoe to be maide Im veen penooal desert, 
sitic^Jj perBCJoal cfaaracser ax>d l^a^H'li^k^« < of each iDdnrkSiaal under the dirtoe law, as 
a^iied ipwrtfccaJly. «. 0^ in the laes adjodicataoii ). a2»d a feneric mocal oondttlon^tbe 
aatbuulHit srciund of aoc^ penKmal c^faaractcr. 

'^Tbe distiDCikm. faciwerta-, i§ nc>t berveen what has moral qnaUtj and what bas iMt, 
but b eta ecu tbe moral fftate of cadi aa a member of tbe r«ce, and his j >i^»iw m i liabOl* 
tics and desHt aa an indiriduaL This ori^ixial sin would wear to iis oojy the character 
vt erll, aDdxx>t of rinf ulneflB, were it not for Ui€ fati that we feci guilty in view of our 
v./rrDfitioo wbaiitbeoonieaknownu>iiein€(urowiiact& Tlien there is invotredln it 
iH/t merety a sense of evU and miwry, but also a sense of guilt ; mcvDorer. redemption 
is ahfo zxweasary to remove it. which shows that it ia a morsl teaser Here is the point 
of Junction betwoen the two extreme positiaiis. that we sinned in Adam, and that all 
fin oonBMS in sinning. The pruilt of Adam's sin is— this exposure, this liability on 
acxx/unt of bq<± nadTe ocarnpcloQ, out having the same nature in the same moral bias. 
Tbe iruilt <jt Adam's sin is tk(C Ut he Kparatfi fn:»zn 1 heexi«4«xiceof this erfl disposition. 
And this guilt is what is impuuid to us."* See art. on H. B. Smith, in Preab. Bev., 18BI : 
** He did not fully acquiesce in PlaoeuaTs Tiew, wiiich makes the o c aiu|it oalnre by 
d*****^ the only i;round of imputatioo."* 

The iheoTj of Mediate Impntation is exposed to the fc^lowing objectkniB : 

A. It gives no explanation of man's responsibilitT for his inborn 

depraTxtr. No explanation of this is poasibley which does not regard man's 

depraritT as having had its origin in a free personal act, either of the 

individna], or of ooIlectiTe human nature in its first father and head. But 

tius participation of all men in Adam's sin the theoiy expresslj denies. 

The theory holds that we are responsible for the effect, but not for the cause—** post 
Adamum« non prfipter Adamnm.** But, says Julius Mailer, l>oct. Sin, S :90a, 881 — 
**lf this rinful tendency be in us solely throu^'h the act of others, and notthrouch 
our own deed, they, and not we. are respfinsible for it, — it is not our guflt, but our 
misf ort une. And e>'en as to act ual sins which spring from t his inherent sinful teodeocy, 
these are not strictly our own, but the acts of our first parents through us. Why 
impute them to us as actual sins, for which we are to be condemned ? Thus, if we deny 
Ums existence of ifuilt, we destroy the reality of sin, and rire rfrso.** TbornweU, 
Tber>lfjgy, I : Silb, 849— This tbe<ir>- ** does not explain the sense of guilt, as ooonected 
with depravity of nature,— how the feeling of ill-desert can arise in relation to a state 
of mind of which we lia\e been only paasiTe recipieDta. Tbe child does not reproach 
himself for the afflictions which a father's follies hare brought upon him. But our 
inward c irruption we do feel to be our own fkult,— it is our crime as well as our shame.** 

B. Binoe the origination of this cormpt nature cannot be charged to the 
aeorjuut of man, ifuiij'B inheritance of it must be regarded in the light of an 
arbitrary divine infliction — a oonclnidon which reflects npon the justice of 
(jtMh 3fan is n^/t on! v condemned for a sinfulness of which God is the 
atjt}j'/r, but is ajudemnc^d without any real probation, either indiTidnal or 

In. liovy. Outlines ftt Theology, objects to the theory of Mediate Imputatioii, 
ht^Mu^:: **U It roasts so faint a light on the Justice of God in the imputation of 
Adai/i'D ttitt t// a^iulU who do as lie did. 2. It casts no light on the Justice of God in 
l/riiiM^ttK UtU/ •ixinUm**'. a raoe inclined to sin by the fail of Adam. The inherited bias is 
aUJJ otAi'XifUittt^, utifi U»e liupuiation of it is a riddle, or a wrong, to the natural under- 
•titndlfiir/' It i« unjust to hold us guilty of the effect, if we be not first guilty of the 

(j. It 'y/utradictH those passages of Scripture which refer the origin of 
buuiau i^fwU'MitmXMni^ hh w€;11 as of human depravity, to the sin of our first 
iMf ttfid wlijcli TfqfrdHeui universal death, not as a matter of divine 
iy, }jui UH a judicial infliction of penalty upon all men for the sin 




AUQUSTINIAK THEORY OF IMPUTATION. 619 

of the race in Adam ( Eomu 5 : 16, 18 ). It moreover does violence to the 
Soriptare in its unnatural interpretation of ''all sinned," in Bom. 5 : 12 — 
words which imply the oneness of the race with Adam, and the caosatiye 
relation of Adam's sin to our guilt 

Certain passages which Dr. H. B. Smith, System, 317, quotes from Edwards, as favor- 
in^r the theory of Mediate Imputation, soem to us to favor quite a different view. See 
Edwards, 2 : 488 sq.— '* The first existinfr of a corrupt dispoeition in their hearts is not 
to be looked upon as sin belonging to them distinct from their participation in Adam's 
first sin ; it is, as it were, the extended pollution of that sin through the whole tree, by 
virtue of the constituted union of the branches with the root. .... I am humbly of 
the opinion that, if any have supposed the children of Adam to come into the world 
with a double guilt, one the guilt of Adam's sin, another the guilt arising from their 
having a corrupt heart, they have notso well considered the matter." And afterwards : 
** Derivation of evil disposition ( or rather co-ezistenoe ) is in consequence of the union," 
— but *' not properly a consequence of the imputation of his sin ; nay, rather antecedent 
to It, as it was in Adam himself. The first depravity of heart, and the imputation of 
that sin, are both the consequences of that established union ; but yet in such order, 
that the evil dispoeition is first, and the charge of guilt consequent, as it was in the 
case of Adam himself.*' 

Edwards quotes Stapf er : *' The Reformed divines do not hold immediate and mediate 
imputation aeparaUly^ but always together." And still further, 2 : 493— ** And there- 
fore the sin of the apostasy is not theirs, merely because Qod imputes it to them ; but 
it is truly and properly theirs, and on that grround God imputes it to them." It seems to 
us that Dr. Smith mistakes the drift of these passages from Edwards, and that in mak- 
ing the identification with Adam primary, and imputation of his sin secondary, thej 
favor the theory of Adam's Natural Headship rather than the theory of Mediate Impu- 
tation. Edwards regards the order as ( 1 ) apostasy ; ( 2 ) depravity : ( 8 ) guilt ; — but in 
all three, Adam and we are, by divine constitution, one. To be guilty of the depravity, 
therefore, we must first bo guilty of the apostasy. 

For the reasons above mentioned we regard the theory of Mediate Imputation as a 
half-way house where there is no permanent lodgment. The logical mind can find no 
satisfaction therein, but is driven either forward, to the Augustinian doctrine which 
we are next to consider, or backward, to the New School doctrine with its atomistic 
conception of man and its arbitrary sovereignty of Ood. On the theory of Mediate 
Imputation, see Cimningham, Historical Theology, 1 : 496-639 ; Princeton Essays 1 : 129, 
154, 168 ; Hodge, Syst. Theology, 2 : 205-214 ; Shedd, History of Doctrine, 2: 158 ; Balrd, 
Blohim Revealed, 46, 47, 474-479, 604-«O7. 

6. The Augustinian Theory^ or Theory of Adam^% Natural Headship. 

This theory was first elaborated by Augustine (354-430), the great 
opponent of Felagius ; although its central feature appears in the writings 
of TertuUian (died about 220), Hilary (350), and Ambrose (374), It is 
frequently designated as the Augustinian view of sin. It was the view held 
by the Reformers, Zwingle excepted. Its principal advocates in this 
country are Dr. Shedd and Dr. Baird. 

It holds that God imputes the sin of Adam immediately to all his poster- 
ity, in virtue of that organic unity of mankind by which the whole race at 
the time of Adam's transgression existed, not individually, but seminally, 
in him as its head. The total life of humanity was then in Adam ; the race 
as yet had its being only in him« Its essence was not yet individualized ; 
its forces were not yet distributed ; the powers which now exist in sepa- 
rate men were then unified and localized in Adam ; Adam's will was yet the 
will of the species. In Adam's free act, the will of the race revolted from 
God and the nature of the race corrupted itself. The nature which we now 
possess is the same nature that corrupted itself in Adam — " not the same 
In kind merely, but the same as flowing to us continuously from him." 



620 ANTHROPOLOGY, OB THE DOCTRINE OF MAN. 

Adam's sin is imputed to us immediately, therefore, not as something 
foreign to us, but because it is ours — we and all other men having existed 
as one moral person or one moral whole, in him, and, as the result of that 
transgression, possessing a nature destitute of love to God and prone to 
eviL In Bom. 5 : 12 — '* death passed unto aU men, for that all sinned," 
signifies : *' death physical, spiritual, and eternal passed unto all men* 
because all sinned in Adam their natural head." 

Milton, Par. Lost, 9:414 — '*Whero likeliest he [Satan] mifrht find The only two of 
mankind, but in them The whole included race, his purpos'd prey.*' Au^rustine, De Pec 
Mer. et Rem., 8 : 7~** In Adamo onmes tunc peccaverunt, quando in ejus natura adhuc 
omnes ille unus fuerunt"; De Civ. Dei, 18, 14 — **Omnes cnim fuimus in iUo uno, 

quando omnes fuimus ille unus Nondum erat nobis sln^illatim crcata el distrib- 

uta forma in quaaingiili viveremus, sed jam natura erat seminalis ex qua propagare- 
mur." On Augrustine's view, see Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2 ; 43-45 ( System Doct., 2 : 338, 
889) — In opposition to Pelacfius who made sin to consist in siniirle acts, ** Ausrustine 
emphasized the sinful state. This was a deprivation of orl^nal rigrhteousness + inordi- 
nate love. Tertullian, Cyprian, Hilarius, Ambrose had advocated trad ucianism. accord- 
ing to which, without their personal participation, the sinfulness of all is grounded in 
Adam*s free act. They incur its consequences as an evil which is, at the same time, 
punishment of the inherited fault. But Irenteus, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, say 
Adam was not simply a single individual, but the universal man. We were comprehended 
in him, so that in him we sinned. On the first view, the posterity were passive ; on the 
second, they were active, in Adam's sin. Augustine represents both views, desiring to 
unite the universal sinfulness involved in traduoianism with the universal will and guilt 
involved in cooperation with Adam's sin. Adam, therefore, to him, is a double concep- 
tion, and — individual + race." 

Mozley on Predestination. 402— *' In Augustine, some passages refer all wickedness to 
original sin ; some account for different degrees of evil by different degrees of original 
sin (Op. imp. oont. Julianum, 4:128— 'Malitia naturalis .... in aliis minor, in aliis 
major est ') ; in some, the individual seems to add to original sin ( De Corrcp. et Qratia, 
a 18—* Perliberum arbitrium alia insuper addiderunt, alii majus, alii minus, sed omnes 
mall.' De Grat. et Lib. Arbit., 2:1—* Added to the sin of their birth sins of their own 
commission * ; 2 : 4 — * Neither denies our liberty of will, whether to choose an evil or a 
good life, nor attributes to it so much power that it can avail anything without God's 
grace, or that it can change itself from evil to good *)." These passages seem to show 
that, side by side with the race-sin and its development, Augustine recognized a domain 
of free personal decision, by which each man could to some extent modify his character, 
and make himself more or less depraved. 

The theory of Augustine was not the mere result of Augustine's temperament or of 
Augustine's sins. Many men have sinned like Augustine, but their intellects have only 
been benumbed and have been led into all manner of unbelief. It was the Holy Spirit 
who took possession of the temperament, and so overruled the sin as to make it a glass 
through which Augustine saw the depths of his nature. Nor was his doctrine one of 
exclusive divine transcendence, which left man a helpless worm at enmity with infinite 
justice. He was also a passionate believer in the immanence of God. He writes : ** I 
could not be, O my God, could not be at all, wert not thou in me ; rather, were not I in 
thee, of whom are all things, by whom are all things, in whom are are all things. . . . O 
God, thou hast made us for thyself, and our heart is restless, till it find rest in thee. 
.... The will of God is the very nature of things— Dei voluntas rerum natura est.'* 

Allen, Continuity of Christian Thought, Introduction, very erroneously declares that 
** the Augustinian theology rests upon the transcendence of Deity as its controlling 
principle, and at every point appears as an inferior rendering of the earlier interpreta- 
tion of the Christian faith." On the other hand, L. L. Paine, Evolution of Trinitarian- 
ism, 69, 368-397, shows that, while Athanasius held to a dualistic transcendence, Augus- 
tine held to a theistic immanence: **Thus the Stoic, Neo-Platonic immanence, with 
Augustine, supplants the Piatonico-Aristotelian and Athanasian transcendence." Alex- 
ander, Theories of the Will, 90— ** The theories of the early Fathers were indeterminis- 
tic, and the pronounced Augustinianism of Augustine was the r(>sult of the rise into 
prominence of the doctrine of original sin. . . . The early Fathers thought of the origin 
of sin in angels and in Adam as due to free will. Augustine thought of the origin of 



AUGUSTINIAN THEORY OP IMPUTATION. 621 

■in in Adam's posterity as duo to inherited evil will.*' Hamack, Wesen des Christen- 
thums, 161 —*' To this day in Catholicism inward and llvinfir piety and the expression of 
it is in essence wholly Auerustinian." 

OiUvin was essentially Au^ustinian and realistic ; see his Institutes, book 2, chap. 1-8 ; 
Hafirenhaoh, Hist. Doct., 1 : 506, 500, with the quotations and referenoes. Zwin^le was 
not an Augustinian. He held that native vitiosity, although It is the uniform occasion 
of sin, is not Itself sin : " It is not a crime, but a condition and a disease.'* See Hagen- 
bach. Hist. Doct. 2 : 256, with references. Zwingle taught that every new-bom child — 
thanks to Christ's making alive of all those who had died in Adam —is as free from any 
taint of sin as Adam was before the falL The Reformers, however, with the single 
exception of Zwingle. were Augustinians, and accounted for the hereditary guilt of 
mankind, not by the fact that all men were represented in Adam, but that all men par- 
ticipated in Adam's sin. This is still the doctrine of the Lutheran church. 

The theory of Adam's Natural Headship regards humanity at large as the outgrowth 
of one germ. Though the leaves of a tree appear as disconnected units when we look 
down upon them from above, a view from beneath will discern the common connection 
with the twigs, branches, trunk, and will finally trace their life to the root, and to the 
seed from which it originally sprang. The race of man is one because It sprang from 
one head. Its members are not to be regarded atomistioally, as segregated Individuals ; 
the deeper truth is the truth of organic unity. Yet we are not philosophical realists ; 
we do not believe in the separate existence of universals. We hold, not to univenalia 
ante rem^ which is extreme realism ; nor to untoersalia post rem, which is nominalism ; 
but to unlvemalia in re, which is moderate realism. Extreme realism cannot see the 
trees for the wood ; nominalism cannot see the wood for the trees ; moderate realism 
sees the wood in the trees. We hold to ** univencdia in re, but Insist that the universals 
must be recognized as realitie^^ as truly as the individuals are " ( H. B. Smith, System, 
319, note ). Three acorns have a common life, as three spools have not. Moderate realism 
is true of organic things ; nominalism is true only of proper names. Ood has not created 
any new tree nature since he created the first tree ; nor has he created any new human 
nature since he created the first man. I am but a branch and outgrowth of the tree of 
humanity. 

Our realism then only asserts the real historical connection of each member of the 
race with its first father and head, and such a derivation of each from him as makes us 
partakers of the character which he formed. Adam was once the race ; and when he 
fell, the race fell. Shedd : *' We all existed in Adam in our elementary invisible substance . 
The Seyn of all was there, though the Daseyn was not ; the mmmeiwn^ though not the 
phenomenon^ was in existence." On realism, see Koehler, Realismus und Nominalismus ; 
Neandcr, Ch. Hist., 4:356; Domer, Person Christ, 3:377; Hase, Ansclm, 2:77; F. B. 
Abbott, Scientific Theism, Introd., 1-29, and in Mind, Oct. 1882:476, 477; Raymond, 
Theology, 2:30-33; Shedd, Dogm. TheoL, 2:69-74; Bowne, Theory of Thought and 
Knowledge, 129-133 ; Ten Brocke, in Baptist Quar. Rev., Jan. 1882 : 1-38 ; Baldwin, Psychol- 
ogy, 280, 281 ; D. J. Hill, Genetic PhUosophy, 186 ; Hours with the Mystics, 1 : 213 ; Case, 
Physical Realism, 17-19 ; Fullerton, Sameneass and Identity, 88, 89, and Concept of the 
Infinite, 95-114. 

The new conceptions of the reign of law and of the principle of heredity which pre- 
vail in modem science are working to the advantage of Christian theology. The doc- 
trine of Adam's Natural Headship is only a doctrine of the hereditary transmission of 
character from the first father of the race to his descendants. Hence we use the word 
** imputation " in its proper sense— that of a reckoning or charging to us of that which 
is truly and properly ours. See Julius MOller, Doctrine of Sin, 2: 2S9-357, esp. 328— 
** The problem Is : Wc must allow that the depravity, which all Adam^s descendants 
inherit by natural generation, nevertheless involves personal guilt; and yet this 
depravity, so far as it is natural, wants the very conditions on which guilt dei>ends. 
The only satisfactory explanation of this difficulty is the Christian doctrine of original 
sin. Here alone, if its inner possibility can be maintained, can the apparently contra- 
dictory principles be harmonized, viz.: the universal and deep-seated depravity of 
human nature, as the source of actual sin, and individual responsibility and guilt.*' 
These words, though written by one who advocates a difTerent theory, are nevertheless 
a valuable argument in corroboration of the theory of Adam's Natural Headship. 

Thomwell, Theology, 1 : 343— *' We must contradict every Scripture text and every 
Scripture doctrine which makes hereditary impurity hateful to God and punishable in 
his sight, or we must maintain that we sinned in Adam in his first transgression.'* Seo- 
retan, in his Work on Liberty, held to a collective life of the race in Adam. He wai 



622 ANTHROPOLOGY, OR THE DOCTRIKE OF MAN". 

answered by Naville, Problem of Evil : •• We existed in Adam, not individually, but 
seminally. Each of us, as an individual, is responsible only for his personal acts, or, to 
speak more exactly, for the personal part of his acts. But each of us, as he is man, is 
Jointly and severally ( solUlalrement ) responsible for the fall of the human race." Ber- 
sier, The Oneness of the Race, in its Fall and in its Future : *' If we are commanded to 
love our neighbor as ourselves, it is because our neisrhbor is ourself." 

See Edwards, Original Sin, part 4, chap. 3 ; Shedd, on Original Sin, in Discourses and 
Essays, 218<271, and references, 261-263, also Dogrm. Theol., 2:181-196; Baird, Elohim 
Revealed, 410-435, 451-460. 484 : Schaff, in Bib. Sac, 5 : 220. and in Lange*s Ck>m., on Eom. 
5:12; Auberlen, Div. Revelation, 175-180; Philippi, Olaubenslehre, 3:28-88, 204-236; Tho- 
masius, Christi Person und Werk, 1 : 26^-400; Martensen, Dogmatics, 173-183; Murphy, 
Sdentiflc Bases, 262 sq., c/. 101 ; Birks, Difficulties of Belief, 135 ; Bp. Reynolds, Sinfulness 
of Sin, in Works, 1 : 102-860; Mozlcy on Original Sin, in Lectures, 136-162; Kendall, on 
Natural Hehrship, or All the World Akin, in Nineteenth Gentury, Oct. 1885 : 614-426. 
Per contra, see Hodge, Syst. Theol., 2 : 157-164, 227-257 ; Haven, in Bib. Sac., 20 : 451-455 ; 
Criticism of Baird's doctrine, in Princeton Rev., Apr. 1860 : 335-876 ; of SohaflT's doctrine, 
in Princeton Rev., Apr. 1870 : 238-262. 

We regard this theory of the Natural Headship of Adam as the most sat- 
isfactory of the theories mentioned, and as furnishing the most important 
help towards the understanding of the great problem of original sin. In 
its favor may be urged the following considerations : 

A. It puts the most natural interpretation upon Bom. 5 : 12-21. In 
verse 12 of this passage — ** death passed unto all men, for that all sinned*' 
— the great majority of commentators regard the word *' sinned '* as describ- 
ing a common transgression of the race in Adam. The death spoken of 
is, as the whole context shows, mainly though not exclusively physicaL 
It has passed upon all — even upon those who have committed no conscious 
and personal transgression whereby to explain its infliction ( verse 14 }. 
The legal phraseology of the passage shows that tliis infliction is not a 
matter of sovereign decree, but of judicial penalty ( verses 13, 14, 15, 16, 
18 — "law," "transgression," "trespass," "judgment .... of one unto 
condemnation," "act of righteousness," "justification"). As the expla- 
nation of this universal subjection to penalty, we are referred to Adam's 
sin. By that one act ( " so," verse 12 ) — the " trespass of the one " man 
( V. 15, 17 ), the " one trespass" (v. 18 ) — death came to all men, because 
all [ not * have sinned *, but ] sinned ( irAvre^ ^fiaprov — aorist of instantaneous 
past action ) — that is, all sinned in " the one trespass " of "the one " man. 
Oompare 1 Cor. 15 : 22 — "As in Adam all die " — where the contrast with 
physical resurrection shows that physical death is meant ; 2 Cor. 5:14 — 
"one died for all, therefore all died." See Commentaries of Meyer, 
Bengel, Olshausen, Philippi, Wordsworth, Lange, Godet, Shedd. This is 
also recognized as the correct interpretation of Paul's words by Beyschlag, 
Bitschl, and Pfleiderer, although no one of these three accepts Paul's doc- 
trine as authoritative. 

Beyschla«r, N. T. Theologry, 2:68-60 — "To understand the apostle*s view, we must 
follow the exposition of Bengel (which is favored also by Meyer and Pfleiderer): 
' B«eaas0 thej — viz., in Adam — ail hare ainned ' ; they all, namely, who were Included in Adam 
according to the O. T. view which sees the whole race in its founder, acted in hia 
action." Ritschl : '* Certainly Paul treated the universal destiny of death as due to the 
sin of Adam. Nevertheless it is not yet suited for a theological rule just for the reason 
that the apostle has formed this idea ;" in other words, Paul's teaching it does not make 
it binding upon our faith. Philippi, Com. on Kom., 168 — Interpret Rom. 5:12— "one 
Binned for all, therefore all sinned," by 2 Cor. 5 : 15 — " one died for all, therefore all died." Evans, 
In Presb. Kev., 1883:294— "bj the tre^ta of the ooethe man/ died," "bjthe tre^taof the one, datthrupiid 



AUQUSTINIAN THEORY OF IMPUTATIOIf. 623 

tknogh tka 0110.'* "thrangk tka om Ban's ditobedknM**— all these phrases, aod the phrases with 
re8|>ect to salvation which correspond to theni, indicate that the fallen race and the 
redeemed race are each regarded as a multitude, a totality. So oi vavrc« in 8 Oor. 5 : 14 
indicates a oorrcspondinir conception of the orgranio unity of the race. 

Prof. Qeorgc B, Stevens, Pauline Theology, SMO, 12&-139, denies that Paul taught the 
sinning of all men in Adam : *^ They sinned in the same sense in which believers were 
crucified to the world and died unto sin when Christ died upon the cross. The believer's 
renewal is conceived as wrought in advance by those acts and experiences of Christ in 
which it has its ground. As the consequences of his vicarious sufferings are traced 
back to their cause, so are the consequences which flowed from the beginning of sin In 
Adam traced back to that original fount of e\il and identified with it; but the latter 
statement should no more be treated as a rigid logical formula than the former, its 
oounterpart. .... There is a mystical identification of the procuring cause with its 
effect, — both in the case of Adam and of Christ." 

In our treatment of the New School theory of sin we have pointed out that the 
inability to understand the vital union of the believer with Christ Incapacitates Ihf 
New School theologian from understanding the organic union of the race with Adam, 
Paul's phrase "iaCbrist" meant more than that Christ is the type and beginner of sal- 
vation, and sinning in Adam meant more to Paul than following the example or acting in 
the spirit of our first father. In 8 Cor. 5 : 14 the argument is that since Christ died, all 
believers died to sin and death in him. Their resurrection-life is the same life that died 
and rose again in his death and resurrection. 80 Adam*s sin is ours because the same 
life which transgressed and became corrupt In him has come down to us and is our 
possession. In Kom. 5:14, the Individual and conscious sins to which the New School 
theory attaches the condemning sentence are expressly excluded, and in totbm 15-19 the 
Judgment is declared to be "of one trespuB." Prof. Wm. Arnold Stevens, of Rochester, says 
well: "Paul teaches that Adam*s sin is ours, not potentially, but actually." Of 
^iiaprov, he says : ** This might conceivably bo : ( 1 ) the historical aorist proper, used in 
its momentary sense; (3) the comprehensive or collective aorist, as In Birjkdtv in the 
same verse; (8) the aorist used in the sense of the English perfect, as in Rom. 3:23 — 
»avTc« yAp iniaprop koX voTcpovrrcu. In 5 : 12> the Context determines with great probability 
that the aorist is used in the first of these senses." We may add tluit interpreters are 
not wanting who so take ^ftoproi' in 3 : 23 ; see also margin of Rev. Version. But since 
the passage Rom. 5 : 12-19 is so important, we reserve to the dose of this section a treat- 
ment of it in greater detaU. 

B. It permits whatever of trath there may be in the Federal theory and 
in the theory of Mediate Imputation to be combined with it, while neither 
of these latter theories can be justified to reason unless they are regarded 
as corollaries or accessories of the truth of Adam's Natural Headship. Only 
on this supposition of Natural Headship could God justly constitute, Adam 
our representative, or hold us responsible for the depraved nature we have 
received from him. It moreover justifies God's ways, in postulating a real 
and a fair probation of our common nature as preliminary to imputation of 
sin — a truth which the theories just mentioned, in common with that of 
the New School, virtually deny, — while it rests upon correct philosophical 
principles with regard to will, ability, law, and accepts the Scriptural 
representations of the nature of sin, the penal character of death, the 
origin of the soul, and the oneness of the race in the transgression. 

John Caird, Fund. Ideas of Christianity, 1 : 196-23^ favors the view that sin consists 
simply in an inherited bias of our nature to evil, and that we are guilty from birth 
because we are sinful from birth. But he recognizes in Augustlnianlsm the truth of 
the organic unity of the race and the implication of every member in its past history. 
He tells us that we must not regard man simply as an abstract or isolated individual. 
The atomistic theory regards society as having no existence other than that of the 
Individuals who compose it. But it is nearer the truth to say that it is society which 
creates the Individual, rather than that the Individual creates society. Man does not 
come Into existence a blank tablet on which external agencies may write whatever 
record they wUL The Individual is steeped in Influences which are duo to the past his- 



624 ANTHROPOLOGY, OR THE DOCTRINE OP MAN. 

tory of bis kind. The individualistic theory runs counter to the most obyioos facts of 
observation and experience. As a philosophy of life, August.lnianlwn has a depth and 
sifirniflcanoe which the individualistic theory cannot claim.** 

Alvah Hovey, Manual of Christian Theolofry, 176 (2d ed. )—** Every child of Adam is 
accountable for the decree of sympathy which he has for the whole system of evil In 
the world, and with the primal act of disobedience amon^r men. If that sympathy is 
full, whether expressed by deed or thousrht, if the whole force of his bein^r is arrayed 
ajrainst heaven and on the side of hell, it is difficult to limit his responsibility.*' 
Schleiermacber held that the guilt of original sin attached, not to the individual as an 
Individual, but as a member of the race, so that the consciousness of race-union carried 
with it the consciousness of race-guilt. He held all men to be equally sinful and to 
dilfer only in their different reception of or attitude toward grace, sin being the 
universal malum mUaphysicum of Spinoza; see Pfleiderer, Prot. TheoL seit Kant, 113. 

0. While its fundamental presupposition — a determination of the will 
of each member of the race prior to his individual consciousness — is an 
hypothesis difficult in itself, it is an hypothesis which furnishes the key to 
many more difficulties than it suggests. Once allow that the race was one 
in its first ancestor and fell in him, and light is thrown on a problem 
otherwise insoluble — the problem of our accountability for a sinful nature 
which we have not personally and consciously originated. Since we can- 
not, with the three theories first mentioned, deny either of the terms of 
this problem — inborn depravity or accountability for it, — we accept this 
solution as the best attainable. 

Sterrett, Reason and Authority in Religion, 20—** The whole swing of the pendulum 
of thought of to-day is away from the individual and towards the social point of view. 
Theories of society are supplementing theories of the individual. The solidarity of man 
is the regnant thought in both the scientific and the historical study of man. It is even 
running into thta extreme of a dctenninism that annihilates the individual.** Chapman, 
Jesus Christ and the Present Age, 43— ** It was never less possible to deny the truth to 
which theology gives expression in its doctrine of original sin than in the present age. 
It is only one form of the universally recognized fact of heredity. There is a collective 
evil, for which the responsibility rests on the whole race of man. Of this common evil 
each man inherits his share ; it is organized in his nature ; it is established in his envi- 
ronment.'* E. G. Kobinson : *' The tendency of modem theology [in the last generation] 
was to individualization, to make each man * a little Almighty.* But the human race 
is one in kind, and in a sense is numerically one. The race lay potentially in Adam. 
The entire developing force of the race was in him. There is no carrying the race up, 
except from the starting-point of a fallen and guilty humanity.** Gk)ethe said that 
while humanity ever advances, individual man remains the same. 

The true test of a theory is, not that it can itself be explained, but that it is capable 
of explaining. The atomic theory in chemistry, the theory of the ether in physics, the 
theory of gravitation, the theory of evolution, are all in themselves indemonstrable 
hypotheses, provisionally accepted simply because, if granted, they unify great aggre- 
gations of facts. Coleridge said that original sin is the one mystery that makes all 
other things clear. In this mystery, however, there is nothing self -contradictory or 
arbitrary. Gladden. What is Left ? 131 — " Heredity is God working in us, and environ- 
ment is GkKl working around us.'* Whether we adopt the theory of Augustine or not, 
the facts of universal moral obliquity and universal human suffering confront us. 
We are compelled to reconcile these facts with our faith in the righteousness and good- 
ness of God. Augustine giv(» us a unifying principle which, better than any other, 
explains these facts and Justifies them. On the solidarity of the race, see Bruce, The 
Providential Order, 280-310, and art. on Sin, by Bernard, in Hastings' Bible Dictionary. 

D. This theory finds support in the conclusions of modem science : 

"with regard to the moral law, as requiring right states as well as right acts ; 

I with regard to the human will, as including subconscious and unconscious 

bent and determination ; with regard to heredity, and the transmission of 

evil character ; with regard to the uniijy and solidarity of the human 



AUQUSTINIAX THEORY OF IMPUTATION. 625 

The Angastiniaii theory may therefore be called an ethical or theological 
interpretation of certain incontestable and acknowledged biological facts. 

Ribot, Heredity, 1 — ** Heredity is that bioloifical law by which all beinffs endowed with 
life tend to repeat themselves In their descendants ; it is for the si>ecie6 what personal 
identity fa for the individual. By it a groundwork remains unchani^ amid incessant 
variations. By it nature ever copies and imitates herself.'* Grifflth-Joncs, Ascent 
through Christ, S08-218— **In man's moral condition wo find arrested development; 
reversion to a savagre type ; hypocritical and self -protective mimicry of virtue ; para- 
sitism ; physical and moral abnormality : deep-seated perversion of faculty.** Simon, 
Reconciliation, 154 gq.—^* The organism was affected before the individuals which are 

its successive differentiations and products were affected Humanity as an 

organism received an injury from sin. It received that injury at the very beginning. 
.... At the moment when the seed began to gonninate disease entered and it was 
smitten with death on account of sin.*' 

Bowne, Theory of Thought and Knowledge, 134— '* A general notion has no actual or 
possible metaph>'Eical existence. All real existence is necessarily singular and individ- 
ual. The only way to give the notion any metaphysical significance is to turn it into a 
law inherent in reality, and this attempt will fail unless we finally conceive this law as 
a rule according to which a basal Intelligence proceeds in positing Individuals." Sheldon, 
in the Methodist iieview, March, 1001 : 214-2S7, applies this explanation to the doctrine 
of original sin. Men have a common nature, he says, only in the sense that they are 
resembling personalities. If we literally died in Adam, we also literally died in Christ. 
There is no all-inclusive Christ, any more than there Is an all-inclusive Adam. We 
regard this argument as proving the precise opposite of its intended conclusion. There 
is an all-inclusive Christ, and the fundamental error of most of those who oppose 
Augustinlanism is that they misconceive the union of the believer with Christ. ** A 
basal intelligence" here "p(»its individuals." And so with the relation of men to 
Adam. Here too there Is "a law Inherent in reality" — the regular working of the 
divine will, according to which like produces like, and a sinful germ reproduces itself, 

E. We are to remember, however, that while this theory of the method 
of our union with Adam is merely a valuable hypothesis, the problem 
which it seeks to explain is, in both its terms, presented to us both by 
conscience and by Scripture. In connection with this problem a central 
fact is announced in Scripture, which we feel compelled to believe upon 
divine testimony, even though every attempted explanation should prove 
unsatisfactory. That central fact, which constitutes the substance of the 
Scripture doctrine of original sin, is simply this : that tlie sin of Adam is 
the immediate cause and ground of inborn depravity, guilt and condemna- 
tion to the whole human race. 

Three things must be received on Scripture testimony : ( 1 ) inborn depravity ; ( 2 ) guilt 
and condemnation theref (jr ; ( 3 ) Adam's sin the cause and ground of both. From these 
three positions of Scripture it seems not only natural, but inevitable, to draw the infer^ 
ence that we "&11 siniMd" in Adam. The Augustlnian theory simply puts in a link of 
connection between two sets of facts which otherwise would be difficult to reconcile. 
But, in putting in that link of connection, it claims that it is merely bringing out Into 
clear light an underlying but Implicit assumption of Paul's reasoning, and this It seeks 
to prove by showing that upon no other assumption can Paul's reasoning be understood 
at all. Since the passage in Rom. 5 : 12-19 Is so Important, we proceed to examine it in 
greater detail. Our treatment is mainly a reproduction of the substance of Shedd'a 
Commentary, although we have combined with it remarks from Meyer, Schaff, Moule, 
and others. 

Exposition op Rom. 6 : 12-19.— Parallel Jjctween the salvatUm in Christ and the ruin 
that has come through Aiiam^ in each case through no personal act of our own, neither 
by our earning salvation in the case of the life received through Christ, nor by our 
individually sinning In the case of the death received through Adam. The statement 
of the parallel is begun in 

Yerse 12 : " as throogti one num sin entored into the world, and death throogh sin, and so death passed onto all men, 
for that all sinned," so (as we may complete the interrupted sentence) by one man light- 

40 



626 ANTHROPOLOGY, OR THE DOCTRINE OP MAN. 

eousncfls entered Into the world, and life by righteousness, and so life passed upon all 
men, because all became partakers of this righteousness. Both physical and spiritual 
death is meant. Tliut it is physical, is shown ( 1 ) from rerae 14 ; ( 2 ) from the allusion to 
Gtn. 3:19; (3) from the univei-sol Jewish and Christian assumption that physioal death 
was the rc»sult of Adam's sin. See Wisdom 2 : 23. 24 ; Sirach 25 : 24 ; 2 EsdrasS : 7, 21 ; 7 : 11, 
46, 48, 1 18 ; 9 : 19 ; John 8 : 44 ; 1 Cor. 15 : 21. That it is spiritual, is evident from Rom. 5 : 18, 21, 
where ^wi? is the opposite of tiaiaros, and from 2 Tim. 1 :10^ where the same contrast occurs. 
The ouTw? in verse 12 shows the mode in which historically death has come to all, namely, 
that the one sinned, and thereby brought death to all ; in other words, death is the 
effect, of which the sin of the one is the cause. By Adam's act, physical and spiritual 
rieath passed upon all men, because all sinned. i<t>' v — l)ecau8e, on the ground of the 
fact thiit, for the reason that, all sinned, vai^c; — all, without exoeption, infants 
included, as Terse 14 teaches. 

" Ufiofnov mentions the particular reason why all men died, viz,, because aU men sinned. 
It is the aorist of momentary past action —sinned when, through the one, sin entered 
into the world. It is as much as to say, ** because, when Adam sinned, all men sinned 
in and with him." This is proved by the succeeding explanatory context ( reries 15-19 ), in 
which it is reiterated five times in succession that one and only one sin is the cause of 
the death that befalls all men. Compare iOor. 15 : 22. The senses " all were sinful," ** all 
became sinful," are inadmissible, for afiapravtiy is not anaprtaKhv yLyvtv^ojL or •Ivai, The 
sense ** death passed upon all men, because all have consciously and personally sinned," 
is contradicted ( 1 ) by rene 14, in which it is asserted that certain persons who are a part 
of iraKTcc, the subject of ij/biapToi/, and who suffer the death which is the penalty of sin, 
did not commit sins resembling Adam's first sin, i, e., individual and conscious trans- 
gressions ; and ( 2 ) by venra 15-19, in which it is asserted repeatedly that only one sin, and 
not millions of transgressions, is the cause of the death of all men. This sense would 
seem to require €0* <|i irai^es aiLopravowiv, Neither can Ttit-apTov have the sense '* were 
accounted and treated as sinners"; for (1) there is no other instance In Scripture 
where this active verb has a passive signification ; and (2) the passive makes rnia(no¥ to 
denote God's action, and not man's. This would not fumlsh the Justification of the 
infliction of death, which Paul is seeking. 

Yene 13 begins a demonstration of the proposition, in Terse 12; that death comes to all, 
because all men sinned the one sin of the one man. The argument Is as follows : Before 
the law sin existed ; for there was death, the penalty of sin. But this sin was not sin 
committed against the Mosaic law, because that law was not yet in existence. The 
death in the world prior to that law proves that there must have been some other law, 
against which sin had been committed. 

Yene 14. Nor could it have been personal and conscious violation of an unwriUJUn law, 
for which death was inflicted ; for death passed upon multitudes, such as infants and 
idiots, who did not sin in their own persons, as Adam did, by violating some known 
commandment. Infants are not specifically named here, because the intention is to 
include others who, though mature in years, have not reached moral consciousness. 
But since death is everywhere and always the penalty of sin, the death of all must have 
been the penalty of the common sin of the race, when vavrt^ ruiofnov in Adam. The law 
which they violated was the Eden statute, 6e&i 2 : 17. The relation between their sin and 
Adam's is not that of resemblance^ but of identity. Had the sin by which death came 
upon them been one like Adam's, there would have been as many sins, to be the cause 
of death and to account for it, as there were individuals. Death would have come into 
the world through millions of men, and not "throagli one man" (Tene 12), and Judgment 
would have come upon all men to condemnation through millions of trespasses, and not 
"through one trespass " ( t. 18 ). The object, then, of the parenthetical digression in renes 13 and 
14 is to prevent the reader from supposing, from the statement that ^^all men sinned," 
that the indi\idual transgressions of all men are meant, and to make it clear that only 
the one first sin of the one first man is intended. Those who died before Moses must 
have violated some law. The Mosaic law, and the law of conscience, have been ruled 
out of the case. These persons must, therefore, have sinned against the commandment 
in Eden, the probationary statute ; and their sin was not similar (i/ioiuf ) to Adam's, 
but Adam's identical sin, the very same sin numerically of the "one msiL" They did not, 
in their own persons and consciously, sin as Adam did ; yet in Adam, and in the nature 
common to him and them, they sinned and fell ( versus Current Discussions in Theology, 
6 : 277, 278 ). They did not sin like Adam, but they "shined in him, and fell with him, in 
that first transgression " C Westminster Larger Catechism, 22). 

Yenei 15-17 show how the work of grace differs from, and surpasses, the work of 8lii* 



AUQUSTIKIAN THEORY OP IMPUTATION. 627 

Orer aff&inst God's oxact Justioe in punishln^r all for the first sin which all committed 
In Adam« is sot the gratuitous Justification of all who are in Christ. Adam's sin is the 
act of Adam and his posterity together ; hence the imputation to the posterity is Just, 
and merited. Christ's obedience Is the work of Christ alone ; hence the imputation of 
it to the elect is grracious and unmerited. Here rovv voAAovf is not of equal extent with 
ot voAAoi in the first clause, because other passa^reB teach that "the maaj " who die in Adam 
are not conterminous with "the manj" who live in Christ ; see i Oor. 15: 22; lUi 25: 46; also, 
see note on rene 18^ below. Tovf iroAAovf hero refers to the same persons who, in rene 17, 
are said to " reoeire the abandanee of gnoe and of the gift of righteoamen." Yene 16 notices a numerical 
difference between the condemnation and the Justification. Condemnation results from 
one offense ; Justification delivers from many offences. Tone 17 enforces and explains 
Tvae 16. If the union with Adam in his sin was certain to brin^ destruction, the union 
with Christ in his rlKhteousness is yet more certain to brinif salvation. 

Tone 18 resumes the parallel between Adam and Christ which was commenced In rene II; 
but was interrupted by the explanatory parenthesis in rmm 13-17. "ii through one trepan . . 
. . . luto all men to condemnation ; eren eo through one act of zighteonfneai .... nnto all men nnto jnstifloation of 
[ necessary to ] life." Here the * all men to eondemnation " — the ot woWoi in rene IS ; and the "aU 
men onto Joitiileation of lift " — the rov« roAAov« in Tene 15. There is a totality in each case ; but, 
in the former case, it is the "aU men" who derive their physical life from Adam,— in the 
latter case, it is the "all men" who derive their spiritual life from Christ ( compare 1 Oor. 
tf:22 — "For as in Adam all die, to alio in Chriit shall all be made allTe"— in which last clause Paul is 
BpeakinfiTt as the context shows, not of the resurrection of all men, both saints and 
sinners, but only of the blessed resurrection of the riflrhteous ; in other words, of the 
resurrection of those who are one with Christ ). 

Terse 19. "For as throngh the one man's disobedienee the manj wero eonstitated mnnen, eren eo throng^ the obedi- 
enoe of the one shall the manj be eonstiUited righteooa." The many were constituted sinners because, 
accordin^r to rerse 12, they sinned in and with Adam in his fall. The verb presupposes 
the fact of natural union between those to whom it relates. All men are declared to 
be sinners on the sround of that "one trespass," because, when that one trespass was com- 
mitted, all men were one man— that is, were one common nature in the first human 
pair. Sin is imputed, because it is committed. All men are punished with death, 
because they literally sinned in Adam, and not because they are metaphorically reputed 
to have done so, but in fact did not. Ot voAAot is used in contrast with the one forefather, 
and the atonement of Christ is desifirnated as vvaxoi}, in order to contrast it with the 
wofioKoi/i of Adam. 

Karaurra^^ovrai bas the same siffniflcation as in the first part of the verse. AtKcuoi 
carcurradi^froKTat means Simply " Shall be Justified," and is used instead of Sttcatwi^iroi^at, 
in order to make the antithesis of a^oprwAol KarcaradTjaai^ more perfect. This bein^r "«n- 
stitnted lighteons" presupposes the fact of a union between h tU and ot voAAot, i. e., between 
Christ and believers. Just as the bein^r "oonstitnted sinners" presupposed the fact of a union 
between 6 tU and oi n-oAAot, i. e., between all men and Adam. The future KaTturradTjaoyrai 
refers to the succession of believers; the Justification of all was, ideally, complete 
already, but actually, it would await the times of Individual believinfir. " The manj " who 
shall be "eonstitated righteons" — not all mankind, but only "the manj" to whom, in TerselS^ 
grace abounded, and who are described, in rerse 17, as "thej that neeire abondanoe of graoe and ol 
the gift of righteoQsnea." 

** But this union differs in several important particulars from that between Adam and 
his posterity. It is not natural and substantial, but moral and spiritual ; not generic 
and universal, but individual and by election ; not caused by the creative act of God, 
but by his rc^renerating act. All men, without exception, are one with Adam ; only 
believing men are one with Christ. The imputation of Adam's sin is not an arbitrary 
act in the sense that, if God so pleased, he could reckon it to the account of any beinirs 
in the universe, by a volition. The sin of Adam could not bo imputed to the fallen 
angels, for example, and punished in them, because they never were one with Adam 
by unity of substance and nature. The fact that they have committed actual trans- 
gression of their own will not Justify the imputation of Adam's sin to them, any more 
than the fact that the posterity of Adam have committed actual transgressions of their 
own would be a suflQcient reason for imputing the first sin of Adam to them. Nothing 
but a real union of nature and being can Justify the imputation of Adam's sin ; and, 
similarly, the obedience of Christ could no more be imputed to an unbelieving man than 
to a lost angel, because neither of these is morally and spiritually one with Christ** 
( Shedd ). For a different interpretation ( riiiofnov — sinned personally and individually ), 
see Kendrick, in Bap. Bev., 1886 : 48-72. 



628 



ANTHROPOIX)OY, OR THE DOCTRINE OF MAK". 



H 

O 

H 



H 
P 
>5 



X 
K 



« 

A 






^11 



1 
1 



■< >; 



e 



K 

6 

■4 




4 

•o 



I 




ll 

51 



8 

a 



C 
o 

1 

I 

a 
a 



•a 

s 

2 

a 

M 



if 4 

III 

11° 



I 



55? 



o « a 



^ if 

ll It^ 




P 

H 
H 

OS 
H 

sd 
o 

H 
P 

;?; 
o 

o 

>5 



g 
I 

M 



l| 
ll 

^1 



1 
8 s 

is 



i 



I 



* 1 



I 







X 

4 






a 
o 

1 



a 
a 



S3 
«-^ 

** GO 



15 -< 

"2 "3 *» 



-a 



If 

k| 
I -o ■ 
S d «* 

a « 00 

n 3 %4 



? 



M 

"§0. 

** o 



If 

il 



Si SI 



J? 



• 
s 

8 

► 

1: 

"I 



X 
4 



< 



d 

o 

i 



a 

e 



u 

ja 






01 

I 



go 



s 



I 

p 

•a 
o 



I 



a 

4i 



g 















I 



2 



u 



J^ 



4» 

I 



E 



a- a-^ 
I& lie 



<!? 



1 



r 



n 



OBJECTIONS TO THE AUOUSTINIAN^ THEORY. 629 

IL — Objections to the Augustinian Dootrinb op Imputation. 

The doctrine of Imputation, to which we have thus arrived, is met by 
its opponents with the following objections. In discussing them, we are 
to remember that a truth revealed in Scripture may have claims to our 
belief, in spite of difficulties to us insoluble. Yet it is hoped that examina- 
tion will show the objections in question to rest either upon false phil- 
osophical principles or upon misconception of the doctrine assailed. 

A. That there can be no sin apart from and prior to consciousness. 

This we deny. The larger part of men's evil dispositions and acts are 
imperfectly conscious, and of many such dispositions and acts the evil 
quality is not discerned at all. The objection rests upon the assumption 
that law is confined to published statutes or to standards formally recog- 
nized by its subjects. A profounder view of law as identical with the 
constituent principles of being, as binding the nature to conformity with 
the nature of God, as demanding right volitions only because these are 
manifestations of a right state, as having claims upon men in their cor- 
porate capacity, deprives this objection of all its force. 

If our aim is to find a conscious act of transgression upon which to base God's 
charge of guilt and man's condemnation, we can find this more easily in Adam's 
sin than at the beginning of each man's personal history ; for no human being can 
remember his first sin. The main question at issue is therefore this : Is all sin 
personal? We claim that both Scripture and reason answer this question in the 
negative. There is such a thing as race-sin and race-responsibility. 

B. That man cannot be responsible for a sinful nature which he did 
not personally originate. 

We reply that the objection ignores the testimony of conscience and of 
Scripture. These assert that we are responsible for what we are. The 
sinful nature is not something external to us, but is our inmost selves. If 
man's original righteousness and the new affection implanted in regenera- 
tion have moral character, then the inborn tendency to evil has moral 
character ; as the former are commendable, so the latter is condemnable. 

If it bo said that sin is the act of a person, and not of a nature, we reply that in Adam 
the whole human nature onoe subsisted in the form of a single personality, and the 
act of the person could be at the same time the act of the nature. That which could 
not be at any subsequent point of time, could be and was, at that time. Human nature 
could fall in Adam, though that fall could not be repeated in the case of any one of his 
descendants. Hovey, Outlines, 129—** Shall we say that uHll is the cause of sin in holy 
beings, while wrong desire is the cause of sin in unholy beings ? Augrustino held this.** 
Pepper, Outlines, 112 — ** We do not fall each one by himself. We were so on probation 
in Adam, that his fall was our fall.** 

0. That Adam's sin cannot be imputed to us, since we cannot repent 
of it 

The objection has plausibility only so long as we fail to distinguish 
between Adam's sin as the inward apostasy of the nature from God, and 
Adam's sin as the outward act of transgression which followed and mani- 
fested that apostasy. We cannot indeed repent of Adam's sin as our per- 
sonal act or as Adam's jiersonal act, but regarding his sin as the apostasy 
of our common nature — an apostasy which manifests itself in our personal 
transgressions as it did in his, we can repent of it and do repent of it In 



630 ANTHROPOLOGY, OB THB DOCTBHTB OP MAN. 

tmth it is this nature, as self -corrupted and averse to Ood, for which the 
Christiaii most deeply repents. 

God, wo know, has not made our nature as we find it. We are oonsdous of our 
depravity and apostasy from God. We know that God cannot be responsible for this ; 
we know that our nature is responsible. But this it could not be, unless its corruption 
were self-corruption. For this self-corrupted nature we should repent, and do repent. 
Anselm, De Concep. Virgr., 23— ''Adam sinned in one point of view as a person. In 
another as man ( i. e., as human nature which at that time existed in him alone). But 
since Adam and humanity could not be separated, the sin of the person necessarily 
alfected the nature. This nature is what Adam transmitted to his posterity, and 
transmitted it such as his sin had made it, burdened with a debt which it could not pay, 
robbed of the ri8:hteousne8S with which God had oriirinally invested it ; and in every 
one of his descendants this impaired nature makes the persons sinners. Yet not in the 
same degree sinners as Adam was, for the latter sinned both as human nature and as 
a person, while new-bom infants sin only as they possess the nature,"— more briefly, in 
Adam a person made nature sinful ; in his posterity, nature makes persons sinful. 

D. That, if we be responsible for Adam's first sin, we must also be 
responsible not only for every other sin of Adam, but for the sins of our 
immediate ancestors. 

We reply that the apostasy of human nature could occur but once. It 
occurred in Adam before the eating of the forbidden fruit, and revealed 
itself in that eating. The subsequent sins of Adam and of our immediate 
ancestors are no longer acts which determine or change the nature, — they 
only show what the nature is. Here is the truth and the limitation of the 
Scripture declaration that ** the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father " 
(Ez. 18 : 20 ; c/. Luke 13 : 2, 3 ; John 9 : 2, 3 ). Man is not responsible 
for the specifically evil tendencies communicated to him from his immedi- 
ate ancestors, as distinct from the nature he possesses ; nor is he respons- 
ible for the sins of those ancestors which originated these tendencies. But 
he is responsible for that original apostasy which constituted the one and 
final revolt of the race from God, and for the personal depravity and dis- 
obedience which in his own case has resulted therefrom. 

Augrustine, Encheiridion, 46, 47, leans toward an Imputing of the sins of immediate 
ancestors, but intimates that, as a matter of firraoe, this may be limited to "the third ud 
fourth genantion " ( Kz. 20 : 5 ). Aquinas thinks this last is said by God, because fathers live to 
see the third and fourth generation of their descendants, and influence them by their 
example to become voluntarily like themselves. Burgesse, Original Sin, 997, adds the 
covenant-idea to that of natural generation, in order to prevent imputation of the 
sins of immediate ancestors as well as those of Adam. So also Shedd. But Baird, Elo- 
him Revealed, 508, gives a better explanation, when he distinguishes between the first 
sin of nature when it apostatized, and those subsequent personal actions which merely 
manifest the nature but do not change it. Imagine Adam to have remained inno- 
cent, but one of his posterity to have fallen. Then the descendants of that one would 
have been guilty for the change of nature in him, but not guilty for the sins of 
ancestors intervening between him and them. 

We add that man may direct the course of a lava-stream, already flowing downward, 
into some particular channel, and may even dig a new channel for it down the moun- 
tain. But the stream is constant in its quantity and quality, and is under the same influ- 
ence of gravitation in all stages of its progress. I am responsible for the downward 
tendency which my nature gave itself at the beginning ; but I am not responsible for 
inherited and specifically evil tendencies as something apart from the nature,— for they 
are not apart from it,— they are forms or manifestations of it. Those tendencies run 
out after a time,— not so with sin of nature. The declaration of Ezekiel ( 18 : 20 ), "the mb 
shAll not b«ar the iniqnitj of the fiither," like Christ's denial that blindness was due to the blind 
man's individual sins or those of his parents ( John 9 : 2, 3 ), simply shows that Gk>d does 
not impute to us the sins of our immediate ancestors ; it is not inoonsistent with the doo- 



OBJECTIONS TO THE AUGUSTIN'IAN' THEORY. 631 

trine that all the physical and moral evil of the worid is the result of a sin of Adam with 
which the whole race is charsrcable. 

Peculiar tendencies to avarice or sensuality Inherited from one's immediate ancestry 
are merely wrinkles in native depravity which add nothing to its amount or its gruilt. 
Shedd, Dogrm. Theol., 3 : 88-W — " To inherit a temperament is to inherit a secondary 
trait.'* H. B. Smith, System, 296 — " Iiekiel 18 docs not deny that descendants are involved 
in the eril results of ancestral sins, under God's moral srovemment ; but simply shows 
that there is opportunity for extrication, in personal repentance and obedience.'* Mot- 
ley on Predestination, 179— ''Augustine sajrs that Ezekicl's declarations that the son 
shall not bear the iniquity of the father are not a imiversal law of the divine dealinsra, 
but only a special prophetical one, as alludingr to the divine mercy under the gospel 
dispensation and the covenant of grraoe, under which the effect of original sin and the 
punishment of mankind for the sin of their first parent was removed.*' See also Dor- 
ner, Glaubenslchre, 2 : 31 ( Syst. Doct., 2 : 326, 327 ), where God's visiting the sins of the 
fathers upon the children ( b. 20 : 5 ) is explained by the fact that the children repeat the 
sins of the parents. German proverb : ** The apple does not fall far from the tree.** 

R That if Adam's sin and condemnation can be ours by propagation, 
the righteousness and faith of the believer should be propagable also. 

We reply that no merely personal qualities^ whether of sin or righteous- 
ness, are communicated by propagation. Ordinary generation does not 
transmit p^r«ona/ guilt, but only that guilt which belongs to the whole 
species. So personal faith and righteousness are not propagable. ** Origi- 
nal sin is the consequent of man's nature, whereas the parents' grace is a 
personal excellence, and cannot be transmitted " ( Burgesse }. 

Thomwell, Selected Writings, 1 : 543, says the Augustinian doctrine would Imply that 
Adam, penitent and believing, must have begotten penitent and believing (^Idren, 
seeing that the nature as it is in the parent always flows from parent to child. But see 
Fisher, Discussions, 370, where Aquinas holds that no quality or guilt that is %>€r8oniil 
is propagated ( Thomas Aquinas, 2 : 629). Anselm ( De Concept. Virg. et Origin. Pec- 
cato, 98 ) will not decide the question. " The ori^nal nature of the tree is propa«rated 
— not the nature of the grraft" — when seed from the grraft is planted. Burgesse: 
^* Learned parents do not convey learning to their children, but they are bom in ignor- 
ance as others." Augustine: **A Jew that was circumcised begat chfldren not circum- 
cised, but uncircumcised ; and the seed that was sown without husks, yet produced 
com with husks." 

The recent modification of Darwinism by Weismann has oonflrmed the doctrine of the 
text. Lamarck's view was that development of each race has taken place through 
the effort of the Individuals, —the griraffe has a long neck because suooessive giraffes 
have reached for food on high trees. Darwin held that development has taken plaoe 
not because of effort, but because of erwironment, which kills the unfit and permits 
the fit to survive, — the giraffe has a long neck because amongr the children of giraflM 
only the long-necked ones could reach the fruit, and of successive generations of 
giraffes only the long-necked ones lived to propagate. But Weismann now tells us that 
even then there would be no development unless there were a spontaneous innate 
tendency in giraffes to become long-necked,— nothing is of avail after the griraffe is 
bom ; all depends upon the germs in the parents. Darwin held to the transmission of 
acquired characters, so that individual men are affluenis of the stream of humanity ; 
Weismann holds, on the contrary, that acquired characters are not transmitted, and 
that individual men are only effluents of the stream of humanity : the stream gives its 
characteristics to the individuals, but the individuals do not give their characteristiGS 
to the stream : see Howard Ernest Cushman, In The Outlook, Jan. 10, 1887. 

Weismann, Heredity, 2 : 14, 266-270, 482 — ^* Characters only acquired by the operation 
of external circumstances, acting during the life of the individual, cannot be transmit- 
ted. • . . The loss of a finger is not Inherited ; Increase of an organ by exercise is a 
purely personal acquirement and is not transmitted ; no child of reading parents ever 
read without being taught; children do not even learn to speak untaught.** Horses 
with docked tails, Chinese women with cramped feet, do not transmit their peculiari- 
ties. The rupture of the hymen in women is not transmitted. Weismann out off the 
tails of 66 white mice in five successive generations, but of 901 offspring none were 
tailless. G. J. Romanes, Life and Letters, 300 — ** Throe additionid cases of oats whidh 



632 ANTHROPOLOGY, OB THE DOCTRINE OF MAN. 

have lost their tails bavlngr tailless kittens afterwards.*' In bis Welsmannlsm, Romanes 
writes : " The truly soientlflc attitude of mind with regard to the problem of heredity 
is to say with Galton : * We might almost reserve our belief that the structural cells 
can react on the sexual elements at all* and we may be confident that at most they do 
so in a very faint degree ; in other words, that acquired modifications are barely if at 
all inherited^ in the correct sense of that word.' *' This seems to class both Romanes 
and Galton on the side of Weismann in the controversy. Burbank, however, says that 
*' acquired characters are transmitted, or I know nothing of plant life.** 

A. H. Bradford, Heredity, 10, 20, illustrates the opposing views : ** Human life is not 
a clear stream flowing from the mountains, receiving in Its varied course something 
from a thousand rills and rivulets on the surface and in the soil, so that it is no longer 
pure as at the first. To this view of Darwin and Spencer, Weismann and Hacckel oppose 
the view that human life is rather a stream flowing underground from the mountains 
to the sea, and rising now and then in fountains, some of which are saline, some sul- 
phuric, and some tincturod with Iron ; and that the dilTerences are due entirely to the 
soil passed through in breaking forth to the surface, the mother-stream down and 
beneath ali the salt, sulphur and iron, flowing on toward the sea substantially 
unchanged. If Darwin is correct, then we must change individuals in order to change 
their posterity. If Weismann is correct, then we must change environment in order 
that better individuals may bo bom. That which is born of tlie Spirit is spirit ; but 
that which Is bom of spirit tainted by corruptions of the flesh is still tainted." 

The conclusion best warranted by science seems to be that of Wallace, in the Forum, 
August, 1890, namely, that there is always a tendency to trannmit acquired characters, 
but that only those which affect the blood and nervous system, like drunkenness and 
syphilis, overcome the fixed habit of the organism and make themselves permanent. 
Applying this principle now to the connection of Adam with the race, we regard the 
sin of Adam as a radical one, comparable only to the act of fuith which merges the soul 
in Christ. It was a turning away of the whole being from the light and love of God, 
and a setting of the face toward darkness and death. Every subsequent act was an act 
in the same direction, but an act which manifested, not altered, the nature. This first 
act of sin deprived the nature of all moral sustenance and growth, except so far as the 
still immanent God counteracted the inherent tendencies to eviU Adam's posterity 
inherited his corrupt nature, but they do not inherit any subsequently acquired char- 
acters, either those of their first father or of their immediate ancestors. 

Bascom, Comparative Psychology, chap. VII — ** Modifications, however great, like 
artificial disablement, that do not work into physiological structure, do not transmit 
themselves. The more conscious and voluntary our acquisitions are, the less are they 
transmitted by inheritance." Shaler, Interpretation of Nature, 88 — ** Heredity and 
individual action may combine their forces and so intensify one or more of the 
inherited motives that the form is affected by it and the effect may be transmitted to 
the offspring. So conflict of inheritances may lead to the institution of variety. 
Accumulation of impulses may lead to sudden revolution, and the species may be 
changed, not by environment, but by contest between the host of inheritances." 
Visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children was thought to be outrageous doo- 
trlne, so long as it was taught only in Scripture. It is now vigorously applauded, since 
it takes the name of heredity. Dale, Ephesians, 189 — "When we were young, we 
fought with certain sins and killed them ; they trouble us no more ; but their ghosts 
seem to rise from their graves in the distant years and to clothe themselves in the flesh 
and blood of our children." See A. M. Marshall, Biological Lectures, 273; Mivart, in 
Harper's Magazine, March, 1895: 683 ; Bixby, Crisis in Morals, 176. 

F. That, if all moral consequences are properly penalties, sin, considered 
as a sinful nature, must be the punishment of sin, considered as the act of 
our first parents. 

But we reply that the impropriety of punishing sin with sin vaniahes 
when we consider that the sin which is punished is our own, equally with 
the sin with which wo are punished. The objection is valid as against the 
Federal theory or the theory of Mediate Imputation, but not as against the 
theory of Adam*8 Natural Headship. To deny that God, through the opera- 
tion of second causes, may punish the act of transgression by the habit and 



« 



OBJECTIOKS TO THE AUGUSTINIAN^ THEORY. 633 

tendency which result from it, is to ignore the facts of every-daj life, as well 
as the statements of Scripture in which sin is represented as ever repro* 
ducing itself, and with each reproduction increasing its guilt and punish- 
ment (Bom. 6 : 19 ; James 1 : 15. ) 

Rom. 6:19— "is jB praentid jour nMmbm la amnati to andMoiMH and to iniquity unto iniquity, •renw 
now priMnt your mimbtri la Mmnto to ligktoooinMs unto aanctification" ; Sph. 4.- 22— "wazaih oonrapl 
afttr the Inita of demt" ; James 1 :i5— ' Then tke lostt when it hatk oonoeiTed, beareth sin: and the sin, when it is 
M-gTown, biingeth fbrth death " ; 2 Tim. 3: 13 — "eTilmenand impostflrs shall wax worse and wona^deoefrin; and 
being deoeiTed." See Meyer on Horn. 1 : 24~" Whwefort God gate then np In the lutti of their hearts onto 
onoleanness." All effects become in their turn causes. Schiller : '* This Is the very curse of 
evil deed« That of new evil It becomes the seed." Tennyson, Vision of Sin : ** Behold it 
was a crime Of sense, avenged by sense that wore with time. Another said : The crime 
of sense became The crime of malice, and is equal blame." Whiton, Is Eternal Punish- 
ment Endless, 52 — ** The punishment of sin essentially consists in the wider spread and 
stronger hold of the malady of the soul. Ptot. 5 : 22 ~* His own Iniqaitiei shall take the wieked.* 
The habit of sinning holds the wicked 'with the eords of his sin.' Sin is self-perpetuating. 
The sinner gravitates from worse to worse, in an ever-deepening fall." The least of our 
sins has In it a power of Infinite expansion,— left to itself it would flood a world with 
misery and destruction. 

Wisdom, 11:16 — '* Wherewithal a man sinnetta, by the same also he shall be punished. " 
Shakespeare, Richard II, 6 : 6— ** I wasted time, and now doth time waste me " ; Ulchard 
III, 4 : 2— ** I am In so far In blood, that sin will pluck on sin *' ; Pericles, 1:1—** One sin 
I know another doth provoke ; Murder 's as near to lust as flame to smoke ; " King 
Lear, 6:3—" The gods are Just, and of our pleasant vices Make instruments to scourge 
us." "Marlowe's Faustus typifies the continuous degradation of a soul that has 
renounced Its ideal, and the drawing on of one vice by another, for tJiey go hand in 
hand like the Hours " ( James Russell Lowell ). Mrs. Humphrey Ward, David Grieve, 
410— " After all, there 's not much hope when the craving returns on a man of his age, 
especially after some years' IntervaL" 

G. That the doctrine excludes all separate probation of individnals since 
Adam, by making their moral life a mere manifestation of tendencies 
received from him. 

We reply that the objection takes into view only oar connection with the 
race, and ignores the complementary and equally important fact of each 
man's personal wiU. That personal will does more than simply express the 
nature ; it may to a certain extent curb the nature, or it may, on the other 
hand, add a sinful character and influence of its own. There is, in other 
words, a remainder of freedom, which leaves room for personal probation, 
in addition to the race-probation in Adam. 

Krelblg, Yers^hnungslehre, objects to the Augustianian view that if personal sin pro- 
ceeds from original, the only thing men are guilty for is Adam's sin ; all subsequent sin 
is a spontaneous development ; the lndi\idual will can only manifest its inborn charac- 
ter. But we reply that this Is a misrepresentation of Augustine. He does not thus lose 
sight of the remainders of freedom In man ( see references on page ttiJO, In the statement 
of Augustine's view, and in the section following this, on Ability, 640-644 ). He says 
that the corrupt tree may produce the wild fruit of morality, though not the divine 
fruit of grace. It is not true that the will is absolutely as the character. Though 
character is the surest Index as to what the decisions of the will may bo, it is not an 
Infallible one. Adam's first sin, and the sins of men after regeneration, prove this. 
Irregular, spontaneous, exceptional though these decisions are, they are still acts of the 
will, and they show that the agent is not hotind by motives nor by character. 

Here is our answer to the question whether it be not a sin to propagate the race and 
produce offspring. Each child has a personal will which may have a probation of its 
own and a chance for deliverance. Denney, Studies in Theolog>', 87-99— "What we 
inherit may be said to fix our trial, but not our fate. We belong to God as well as to 
the past." " ill souls are minfl " ( Ki. 18 : 4 ) ; "Erery one that ii of the troth heureth my Toioe " (John 18 : 37 ). 
Thomas Fuller : ** 1. Boboam begat Abla ; that is, a bad father begat a bad son ; 2. Abla 



634 ANTHROPOLOGY, OR THE DOCTRINE OF MAN. 

begrat Asa; that is, a bad father begat a good son ; 3. Asa begat Joeaphat ; that is, a 
good father a good son ; 4. Josaphat begat Joram : that Is, a good father a bad son. I 
see, Lord« from hence, that my father's piety cannot be entailed ; that is bad news for 
me. But I see that actual impiety is not always hereditary ; that is good news for my 
son.*' Butcher, Aspects of Greek Genius, 121 — Among the Greeks, " The popular view 
was that guilt is inherited ; that is, that the children are punished for their fathers* 
sins. The view of JBschylus, and of Sophocles also, was that a tendency towards guilt 
was inherited, but that this tendency does not annihilate man's free wilL If therefore 
the children are punished, they are punished for their own sins. But Sophocles saw the 
further truth that innocent children may suffer for their fathers* sins.** 

Julius MUller, Doc. Sin, 2 : 316— '* The merely organic theory of sin leads to natural- 
ism, which endangers not only the doctrine of a final Judgment, but that of personal 
immortality generally.'* In preaching, therefore, we should begin with the known and 
acknowledged sins of men. We should lay the same stress upon our connection with 
Adam that the Scripture does, to explain the problem of universal and inveterate sin- 
ful tendencies, to enforce our need of salvation from this common ruin, and to illus- 
trate our connection with Christ. Scripture does not, and we need not, make our 
responsibility for Adam's sin the great theme of preaching. See A. H. Strong, on 
Christian Individualism, and on The New Theology, in Philosophy and Religion, 156- 
163, 164-lTO. 

H. That the organio unity of the race in the transgression is a thing so 
remote from common experience that the preaching of it neutralizes all 
appeals to the conscience. 

But whatever of truth there is in this objection is due to the self -isolating 
nature of sin. Men feel the unity of the family, the profession, the nation 
to which they belong, and, just in proportion to the breadth of their sym- 
pathies and their experience of divine grace, do they enter into Christ's 
feeling of unity with the race ( c/. Is. 6 : 5 ; Lam. 3 : 39-45 ; Ezra 9:6; 
Neh. 1:6). The fact that the self-contained and self-seeking recognize 
themselves as responsible only for their personal acts should not prevent 
our pressing upon men's attention the more searching standards of the 
Scriptures. Only thus can the Christian find a solution for the dark prob- 
lem of a corruption which is inborn yet condemnable ; only thus can the 
unregencrate man be led to a full knowledge of the depth of his ruin and 
of his absolute dependence upon Gk>d for salvation. 

Identification of the individual with the nation or the race :Ii.6:S-~'^W<MbiMlfarlui 
undone ; beoaase I am a man of andean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of nnelean lips" ; Lam. 3:42 — "Ve 
hare txansgrooed and hare rebelled " ; Isra 9:6 — " I am ashamed and blnsh to lift up my face to thea^ mj God ; for 
our iniqaities are increased oTer oar head " ; NeL i : 6 — " I oonfess the sins of the ohildren of Israel .... Tea, I and 
mj bther's hoase hare sinnei" So God punishes all Israel for David's sin of pride ; so the sins 
of Reuben, Canaan, Achan, Gchazi, are visited on their children or descendants. 

H. B. Smith, System, 296, 297 — ** Under the moral government of God one man may 
Justly suffer on account of the sins of another. An organic relation of men is regarded 
in the great Judgment of Gk>d in history There is evil which comes upon indi- 
viduals, not as punishment for their i)er8onal sins, but still as suffering which comes 
under a moral government Jer. 32 : 18 reasserts the declaration of the second com- 
mandment, that God visits the iniquity of the fathers upon their children. It may be 
said that all these are merely * consequences ' of family or tribal or national or race 
relations, — * Evil becomes cosmical by reason of fastening on relations which were 
originally adapted to making good cosmical : * but then God's plan must be in the con- 
sequences—a plan administered by a moral being, over moral beings, according to 
moral considerations, and for moral ends : and, if that be fully taken into view, the 
dispute as to * consequences ' or * punishment* becomes a merely verbal one." 

There is a common conscience over and above the private conscience, and it controls 
individuals, as appears in great crises like those at which the fall of Fort Sumter sum- 
moned men to defend the Union and the Proclamation of Emancipation sounded the 
death-knell of slavery. Coleridge said that original sin is the one msrstery that makes 



OBJECTIONS TO THE AUGUSTINIAN THEORY. 635 

all things clear; see Fisher, Nature and Method of Revelation, 151-1S7. Bradford, 
Heredity, 34, quotes from Elam, A Phjrsioian's Problems, 6 ~ *' An acquired and habitual 
vice will rarely fail to leave its traoe upon one or more of the offspring, either In its 
original form, or one closely allied. The habit of the parent becomes the all but irre- 
sistible impulse of the child ; . . . . the organic tendency is excited to the uttermost, 
and the power of will and of conscience is proportionally weakened. • . • • So the sins 
of the parents are visited upon the children.** 

Pascal : *' It is astonishing that the mystery which is furthest removed from our 
knowledge— I mean the transmission of original sin — should be that without which 
wo have no true knowledge of ourselves. It is In this abyss that the clue to our condi- 
tion takes its turnings and windings, insomuch that man is more incomprehensible 
without the mystery than this mystery is incomprehensible to man.** Yet Pascal's 
perplexity was largely due to his holding the Augustinian position that inherited sin 
is damning and brings eternal death, while not holding to the co(}rdinate Augustinian 
position of a primary existence and act of the species in Adam ; see Shedd, Dogm, 
Theol., 2 : 18. Atomism is egotistic. The purest and noblest feel most strongly that 
humanity is not like a heap of sand-grains or a row of bricks set on end, but that it is 
an organic unity. So the Christian feels for the family and for the church. So Christ, in 
Gethscmanc, felt for the race. If it be said that the tendency of the Augustinian view 
is to diminish the sense of guilt for personal sins, we reply that only those who recognize 
sinsaa rooted in stn can properly recognize the evil of them. To such they are sympUmia 
of an apostasy from Gkxl so deep-seated and universal that nothing but infinite grace 
can deliver us from it. 

L That a Gonstitation by which the sin of one individual involyes in 
gnilt and condemnation the nature of all men who descend from him is 
contrary to God's justice. 

We acknowledge that no human theory can fully solve the mystery of 
imputation. But we prefer to attribute Ood's dealings to justice rather 
than to soyereigniy. The following considerations, though partly hypo- 
thetical, may throw light upon the subject : (a ) A probation of our com- 
mon nature in Adam, sinless as he was and with full knowledge of God's 
law, is more consistent with divine justice than a separate probation of each 
individual, with inexperieuoe, inborn depravity, and evil example, all favor- 
ing a decision against God. ( 6 ) A constitution which made a common 
fall possible may have been indispensable to any provision of a common sal- 
vation. ( c ) Our chance for salvation as sinners under grace may be better 
than it would have been as sinless Adams under law. (d) A constitution 
which permitted oneness with the first Adam in the transgression cannot 
be unjust, since a like principle of oneness with Christ, the second Adam, 
secures our salvation. ( 6 ) There is also a physical and natural union 
with Christ which antedates the fall and which is incident to man's creation. 
The immanence of Christ in humaniiy guarantees a continuous divine 
effort to remedy the disaster caused by man's free will, and to restore the 
moral union with God which the race has lost by the falL 

Thus our ruin and our redemption were alike wrought out without per- 
sonal act of ours. As all the natural life of humanity was in Adam, so all 
tlie spiritual life of humanity was in Christ. As our old nature was cor- 
rupted in Adam and prox)agated to us by physical generation, so our new 
nature was restored in Christ and communicated to us by the regenerating 
work of the Holy Spirit. If then we are justified upon the ground of our 
inbeing in Christ, we may in like manner be condemned on the ground of 
our inbeing in Adam. 

Steams, in N. Eng., Jan. 1883 : 95— **The silence of Scripture respecting the precise 
connection between the first great sin and the sins of the millions of individuals who 



636 ANTHROPOLOGY, OR THE DOCTRINE OF |fAN. 

have lived since then is a silence that neither science nor philosophy has been, or is, 
able to break with a satisfactory explanation. Separate the twofold nature of man. 
corporate and individual. Recognize in the one the reerion of necessity ; in the other 
the region of freedom. The scientific law of heredity has brought into new currency 
the doctrine which the old theologians sought to express under the name of original 
8in,~a term which had a meaning as it was at first used by Augustine, but which is an 
awkward misnomer if we accept any other theory but his." 

Dr. Hovey claims that the Augustinian view breaks down when applied to the con- 
nection between the Justification of believers and the righteousness of Christ; for 
believers were not in Christ, as to the substance of their souls, when he wrought out 
redemption for them. But we reply that the life of Christ which makes us Christians 
is the same life which made atonement upon the cross and which rose from the grave 
for our Justification. The parallel between Adam and Christ is of the nature of analogy, 
not of identity. With Adam, we have a connection of physical life ; with Christ, a 
connection of spiritual life. 

Stahl, Philosophic des Rechts, quoted in Olshausen's Com. on RAm. 5:12-21— "Adam is 
the original matter of humanity ; Christ is its original idea in God ; both personally 
living. Mankind is one in them. Therefore Adam^s sin became the sin of all ; Christ's 
sacrifice the atonement for alL Every leaf of a tree may be green or wither by itself ; 
but each suffers by the disease of the root, and recovers only by its healing. The shal- 
lower the man, so much more isolated will everything appear to him ; for upon the 
surface all lies apart. He will see in mankind, in the nation, nay, even in the family, 
mere individuals, where the act of the one has no connection with that of the other. 
The prof ounder the man, the more do these inward relations of unity, proceeding from 
the very centre, force themselves upon him. Yea, the love of our neighbor is itself 
nothing but the deep feeling of this unity ; for we love him only, with whom we feel 
and acknowledge ourselves to be one. What the Christian love of our neighbor is for 
the heart, that unity of race is for the understanding. If sin through one, and redemp- 
tion through one, is not possible, the command to love our neighbor is also unintelli- 
gible. Christian ethics and Christian faith are therefore in truth indissolubly united. 
Christianity effects in history an advance like that from the animal kingrdom to man, 
by its revealing the essential unity of men, the consciousness of which in the andent 
world had vanished when the nations were separated.'* 

If the sins of the parents were not visited upon the children, neither could their 
virtues be ; the possibility of the one involves the possibility of the other. If the guilt 
of our first father could not be transmitted to all who derive their life from him, then 
the Justification of Christ could not be transmitted to all who derive their life from hhn. 
We do not, however, see any Scripture warrant for the theory that aU men are Justified 
from original sin by virtue of their natural connection with Christ. He who is the life 
of all men bestows manifold temporal blessings upon the ground of his atonement. 
But Justification from sin is conditioned upon conscious surrender of the human will 
and trust in the divine mercy. The immanent Christ is ever urging man individually 
and collectively toward such decision. But the acceptance or rejection of the offered 
grace is left to man^s free will. This principle enables us properly to estimate the view 
of Dr. Henry E. Robins which follows. 

H. B. Robins, Harmony of Ethics with Theology, 51— "All men bom of Adam stand 
in such a relation to Christ that salvation is their birthright under promise— a birth- 
right which can only be forfeited by their intelligent, personal, moral action, as was 
Esau's." Dr. Robins holds to an inchoate Justification of all — a Justification which 
becomes actual and complete only when the soul closes with Christ's offer to the sinner. 
We prefer to say that humanity in Christ is ideally justified because Christ himself is 
Justified, but that individual men are Justified only when they consciously appropriate 
his offered grace or surrender themselves to his renewing Spirit. Allen, Jonathan 
Edwards, 312—** The grace of God is as organic in its relation to man as is the evil in his 
nature. Grace also reigns wherever Justice reigns." William Ashmoro, on the New 
Trial of the Sinner, in Christian Review, 26 ; 245-264—** There is a gospel of nature com- 
mensurate with the law of nature ; Rom. 3 : 22— 'onto all, tnd apon all them that beliere*; the first 'all * 
is unlimited ; the second 'all ' is limited to those who believe." 

R. W. Dale, Ephesians, 180 — " Our fortunes were identified with the fortunes of Christ ; 
in the divine thought and purpose we were inseparable from him. Had we been true 
and loyal to the divine idea, the energy of Christ's righteousness would have drawn us 
upward to height after height of goodness and Joy, until we ascended from this earthly 
life to the larger powers and loftier services and richer delights of other and diviner 



CONSEQUENCES OP SIN TO ADAM's POSTERITY. 637 

^rorldft ! and still, through one frolden age of Intellectual and ethical and spiritual 
^>:rowth attcT another, we should have continued to rise towards Christ's transcendent 
and infinite perfection. But we sinned ; and as the union between Christ and us could 
not be brolcen without the final and irrevocable defeat of the divine purpose, Christ 
was drawn down from the serene heavens to the confused and troubled life of our race, 
to pain, to temptation, to anguish, to the cross and to the grave, and so the mystery of 
his atonement for our sin was consummated.'* 

For replies to the foregoing and other objections, see Sohaff, in Bib. Sac, 5 : 280 ; Shedd, 
Sermons to the Nat. Man, 966-281; Baird, Elohim Revealed, 507-fiOe, 5»HM4; Birks, 
Difficulties of Belief, 131-188; Edwards, Original Sin, in Works, 2 : 47&-510; Atwater, on 
Calvinism in Doctrine and life, in Princeton Review, 1876 : 73 ; Steams, Evidence of 
Christian Experience, 96-100. Per eontrc^ see Moxom, in Bap. Rev^ 1891 : 3^3-287 ; Park, 
Discourses, 210-233 ; Bradford, Heredity, 287. 



SECTION VI.— CONSEQUENCES OP SIN TO ADAM's POSTERITY. 

As the result of Adam's transgpressioii, all his posterity are bom in the 
same state into Tvhich he fell. But sinoe law is the all-comprehending 
demand of harmony with Gk>d, all moral consequences flowing from trans- 
gression are to l)e regarded as sanctions of law, or expressions of the divine 
displeasure through the constitution of things which he has established. 
Certain of these consequences, however, are earlier recognized than others 
and are of minor scope ; it will therefore be nsefol to consider them under 
the three aspects of depravity, guilt, and penalty. 

L Depravitt. 

By this we mean, on the one hand, the lack of original righteousness or 
of holy affection toward God, and, on the other hand, the corruption of the 
moral nature, or bias toward evil. That such depravity exists has been 
abundantly shown, both from Scripture and from reason, in our considera^ 
tion of the universality of sin. 

Salvation is twofold: deliverance from the evil— the penalty and the power of sin ; 
and accomplishment of the ffood— likeness to God and realization of the true idea of 
humanity. It includes all these for the race as well as for the individual : removal of 
the barriers that keep men from each other; and the perfecting of society in commun- 
ion with God ; or, in other words, the kin^om of God on earth. It was the nature of 
man, when he first came from the hand of God, to fear, love, and trust God above all 
things. This tendency toward God has been lost; sin has altered and corrupted man's 
innermost nature. In place of this bent toward God there is a fearful bent toward 
evil. Depravity is both neerati ve — absence of love and of moral likeness to Gtod — and 
positive — presence of manifold tendencies to eviL Two questions only need detain us : 

1. Depravity partial or total f 

The Scriptures represent human nature as totally depraved. The phrase 
''total depravity," however, is liable to misinterpretation, and should not 
be used without explanation. By the total depravity of universal humanity 
we mean : 

A. Negatively, — not that every sinner is : (a) Destitute of oonsdenoe, 
— for the existence of strong impulses to right, and of remorse for wrong- 
doing, show that conscience is often keen ; ( 6 ) devoid of all qualities 
pleasing to men* and usef uJ when judged by a human standard, — for the 



638 ANTHROPOLOGY, OR THE DOCTRINE OF MAN. 

existence of sucli qualities is recognized by CJhrist; (c) prone to every 
form of sin, — for certain forms of sin exclude certain others ; (d) intense 
as he can be in his selfishness and opposition to God, — for he becomes 
worse every day. 

(a) John 8 :9^'*kni thej, when thej heard it, went out one bj one, beginning from the eldest, em nnto th« 
last " ( John 7 : 53— 8 : 11, though not written by John, is a perfectly true narrative, descended 
from the apostolic age ). The musclen of a dead frog's leg will contract when a current 
of electricity is sent into them. So the dead soul will thrill at touch of the divine law. 
Natural conscience, combined with the principle of self-love, may even prompt choice 
of the good, though no love for God is in the choice. Bcngel : ** We have lost our like- 
ness to God; but there remains notwithstanding an indelible nobility which we ought 
to revere both in ourselves and in others. We still have remained men, to be con- 
formed to that likeness, through the divine blessing to which man's will should sub- 
scribe. This they forget who speak evil of human nature. Absalom fell out of his 
father's favor ; but the people, for all that, recognized in him the son of the king." 

( b ) Mark 10 : 21 — " And Jesus looking upon him lored him." These very qualities, however, may 
show that their possessors are sinning against great iigh^ and are the more guilty ; cf. 
MaL 1 : 6 — " A son honoreth his fiither, and a serrant his master: if thei I am a father, where is mine honor? and if I 
am a master, where is my fear?" John Caird, Fund. Ideas of Christianity, 3 : 75—** The assertor 
of the total depravity of human nature, of its absolute blindness and Incapacity, pre- 
supposes in himself and in others the presence of a criterion or principle of good. In 
virtue of which he discerns himself to be wholly evil ; yet the very proposition that 
human nature is wholly evil would be unintelligible unless it were false. . . . Conscious- 
ness of sin is a negative sign of the possibility of restoration. But it is not in itself 
proof that the possibility will become actuality.*' A ruined temple may have beautiful 
fragments of fluted columns, but it is no proper habitation for the god for whose 
worship it wajs built. 

( c ) Mat 23 : 23 — " je tithe mint and anise and cummin, and haTe left undone the weightier matters of the law, 
Jnstioe. and mercj, and faith : but these je ooght to hare done, and not to have left the other undone*' ; Rom. 2 : 14 
— ' when Gentiles that have not the law do b j nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law onto 
themselves ; in that thej show the work of the law written in their hearts; their oonsoienoe bearing witness therewith.** 
The sin of miserliness may exclude the sin of luxury ; the sin of pride may exclude the 
sin of sensuality. Shakespeare, Othello, 2 : 3 — '* It hath pleased the devil Drunkenness 
to give place to the devil Wrath." Franklin Carter, Life of Mark Hopkins, 821-323— 
Dr. Hopkins did not think that the sons of God should describe themselves as onoe 
worms or swine or vipers. Yet he held that man could sink to a degradation below 
the brute : '* No brute is any more capable of rebelling against God than of serving 
him ; is any more capable of sinking below the level of its own nature than of rising to 
the level of man. No brute can be either a fool or a fiend. ... In the way that sin and 
corruption came into the spiritual realm we find one of those analogies to what takes 
place In the lower forms of being that show the unity of the system throughout. All 
disintegration and corruption of matter is from the domination of a lower over a higher 
law. The body begins to return to its original elements as the lower chemical and 
physical forces begin to gain ascendency over the higher force of life. In the same 
way all sin and corruption in man is from his yielding to a lower law or principle of 
action in opposition to the demands of one that is higher.'* 

( d ) Gen. IS : 16 — " the iniqultj of the imorite is not jet ftdl " ; 2 Tim. 3 : 13^ "evil men and impostors shall wiz 
worse and worse." Depravity is not simply being deprived of good. Depravation ( de, and 
prawLs, crooked, perverse ) is more than deprivation. Left to himself man tends down- 
ward, and his sin increases day by day. But there is a divine influence within which 
quickens conscience and kindles aspiration for better things. The immanent Christ is 
*the light which lighteth eveiy man " ( John 1:9). Prof. Wm. Adams Brown : ** In so far as Gk>d*B 
Spirit is at work among men and they receive ' the Light which lighteth every man,' we must 
qualify our statement of total depravity. Depravity is not so much a state as a tendency. 
With growing complexity of life, sin becomes more complex. Adam's sin was not the 
worst. ' It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the daj of judgment, than for thee * ( Mat. U : 84 ).'* 

Men are not yet in the condition of demons. Only here and there have they attained 
to ** a disinterested love of eviL" Such men are few, and they were not bom so. 
There are degrees in depravity. E. G. Robinson : *" There is a good streak left in the 
devil yet.'* Even Satan will become worse than he now is. The phrase *' total deprav- 
ity " has respect only to relations to God, and it means incapability of doing anythlnc 



CONSEQUENCES OF SIN TO ADAM's POSTEBITY. 639 

which in the sight of God is a grood act. No act is perfectly good that does not proceed 
from a true heart and constitute an expression of that heart. Yet we have no right to 
say that every act of an unregenerate man is displeasing to God. Right acts from 
right motives are good, whether performed by a Christian or by one who is unrenewed 
in heart. Such acts, however, are always prompted by God, and thanks for them are 
due to God and not to him who performed them. 

B. Positively, — that every siimer is: (a) totally destitute of that love 
to God which constitutes the fundamental and all-inclusive demand of the 
law ; ( 6 ) chargeable with elevating some lower affection or desire above 
regard for God and his law ; ( <? ) supremely determined, in his whole 
inward and outward life, by a preference of self to God ; {d) possessed of 
an aversion to God which, though sometimes latent, becomes active enmity, 
so soon as God's will comes into manifest conflict with his own ; ( e ) dis- 
ordered and corrupted in every faculty, through this substitution of self- 
ishness for supreme affection toward God ; (/) credited with no thought, 
emotion, or act of which divine holiness can fully approve l (g) subject 
to a law of constant progress in depravity, which he has no recuperative 
energy to enable him successfully to resist 

(a) Johii5:42— "Bntlknow joa,thatjebATeBottheloT»of GodinTonmlTaa." (b) 2T!]iL3:4»"loT«Baf 
pletsure rather than loTers of God " ; cf. lUli:6 — "ison honoreth his fUher, and a sonrant his master: if thenl 
am a father, where is mine honor? and if I am a master, where is mj bar? " ( c ) 2 Tim. 3 : 2 — "loTers of self " ; 
(d) Rom. 8 :7->" the mind of the flesh is enmitj against God." (e) Bph. 4: 18 — "darkened in their ondentaad- 
ing . . . . hardening of their heart"; Tit. 1:15 — "both their mind and their eonsoienoe are defiled"; 2Gor. 7:1— 
" defilement of fiesh and spirit " ; leb. 3 : 12— "an eiil heart of unbelief " ; (/ ) Rom. 8 : 9 — " thej an aU nnder sin " ; 
7:18- "in m^ that is, in mj flesh, dwelleth no good thing." (g) Ram.7:18— "to willispnaent with me, bat to 
do that whieh is good is not" ; 23— "kwin mj member^ waning against the kw of mj mind, and bringing bm into 
captiTitj nnder the law of sin whioh Is in mj members." 

Every sinner would prefer a milder law and a different administration. But whoever 
does not love God's law does not truly love God. The sinner seeks to secure his own 
interests rather than God's. Even so-called reli^ous acts he performs with preference 
of his own grood to God's fflory. He disobeys, and always has disobeyed, the fundamen- 
tal law of love. Ho is like a railway train on a down grade, and the brakes must be 
applied by God or destruction is sure. There are latent passions In every heart which 
if let loose would curse the world. Many a man who escaped from the burning Iroquois 
Theatre in Chicago, proved himself a brute and a demon, by trampling down fugitives 
who cried for mercy. Denney, Studies in Theology, 83— " The depravity which sin has 
produced in human nature extends to the whole of it. There is no part of man's nature 
which is unaffected by it. Man's nature is all of a piece, and what affects it at all 
aff(K;t8 it altogether. When the conscience is violated by disobedience to the will of 
God, the moral understanding is darkened, and the will is enfeebled. We are not 
constructed in water-tight compartments, one of whioh might be ruined while the 
others remained intact.** Yet over against total depravity, we must set total redemp- 
tion ; over against original sin, original grace. Christ is in every human heart mitiga- 
ting the affects of sin, urging to repentaroe, and "able to sare to the nttarmost them that draw near 
onto God Uunmgh him " { Eeb. 7 : 25 ). Even the um«generate heathen may " pnt awaj .... the old maa ** 
and "pat on the new man " (Iph. 4:22, 24), being delivered "oat of the bod/ of this death . . . . thronghiMi 
Christ GOT Lord" (Rom. 7: 24, 25). 

H. B. Smith, System, 277—** By total depravity is never meant that men are as bad 
as they can be ; nor that they have not, in their natural condition, certain amiable 
qualities; nor that they may not have virtues In a limited sense (justitiadvUia). But 
it is meant ( 1 ) that depravity, or the sinful condition of man, infects the whole 
man : intellect, feeling, heart and will ; (2) that in each unrenewed person some lower 
affection is supreme; and (3) that each such is destitute of love to God. On these 
positions : as to ( 1 ) the power of depravity over the whole man, we have given proof 
from Scripture ; as to (3) the fact that in every unrenewed man some lower affection 
is supreme, experience may be always appealed to; men know that their supreme 
affection is fixed on some lower good— intellect, heart, and will going together in it; 
or that some form of selfishness is predomlnaat— usiiig selfish In a general sense— 



- r 'm -^KXS 







1.- .^-^a-r . 






2iC 






:ii'^- 









■■ -,j 






>-■■ . 



■ . VI,. 



'-j^- :•:•■ 1 *.: . V 1 ■ . 






00KSEQUE1TCE3 OF SIN TO ADAM'S POaTEEITT. 641 

die himself to Ood and to obtain dominion over the world and over sin, then the 
doctrine of inability, or of the bondagre due to sin, may be denied; then^ but not tiU 
then.'* The Free Church of Scotland, in the Declaratory Act of 1892, says "that, in 
holdingr and teachin^r, accordinsr to the Oonfession of Faith, the corruption of man*s 
whole nature as fallen, this church also maintains that there remain tokens of hisgrreat- 
ness OS created in the image of God ; that he possesses a knowledge of GK>d and of duty ; 
that ho is responsible for compliance with the moral law and with the gospel ; and that, 
although unable without the aid of the Holy Spirit to return to God, he is yet capable 
of affections and actions which in themselves are virtuous and praiseworthy/' 

To the use of the term '* natural ability " to designate merely the sinner's 
possession of all the constituent faculties of human nature, we object upon 
the following grounds : 

A. Quantitative lack. — The phrase <' natural ability" is misleading, 
since it seems to imply that the existence of the mere powers of intellect, 
afifectiou, and will is a sufficient quantitative qualification for obedience to 
God's law, whereas these powers have been weakened by sin, and are nat- 
urally unable, instead of naturally able, to render back to Gk)d with interest 
the talent first bestowed. Even if the moral direction of man's faculties 
were a normal one, the e£fect of hereditary and of personal sin would 
render naturally impossible that large likeness to God which the law of 
absolute perfection demands. Man has not therefore the natural ability 
perfectly to obey God. He had it once, but he lost it with the first sin. 

When Jean Paul Richter says of himself : *' I have made of myself all that could be 
made out of the stuff," he evinces a self-complacency which is due to self-ignorance and 
lack of moral insight. When a man realizes the extent of the law*s demands, he sees 
that without divine help obedience is impossible. John B. Gough represented the con- 
flmied drunkard^s efforts at reformation as a man's walking up Mount Etna knee^leep 
in burning lava, or as one's rowing against the rapids of Niagara. 

B. Qualitative lack. — Since the law of Gk>d requires of men not so much 
right single volitions as conformity to God in the whole inward state of the 
afifections and will, the power of contrary choice in single volitions does 
not constitute a natural ability to obey God, unless man can by those single 
volitions change the underlying state of the affections and wilL But this 
power man does not possess. Since God judges all moral action in connec- 
tion with the general state of the heart and life, natural ability to good 
involves not only a full complement of faculties but also a bias of the affec- 
tions and will toward God. Without this bias there is no possibility of right 
moral action, and where there is no such possibility, there can be no ability 
either natural or moraL 

Wilkinson, Bpio of Paul, 21— ** Hatred is like love Herein, that it, by only being, 
grows. Until at last usurping quite the man. It overgrows him like a polypus.'* John 
Cuird, Fund. Ideas, 1 : 53 — '* The ideal is the revelation in me of a power that is mightier 
than my own. The supreme command * Thou oughtest * is the utterance, only different 
in form, of the same voice in my spirit which says *' Thou canst ' ; and my highest 
spiritual attainments are achieved, not by self-assertion, but by 8elf»renunciation and 
Belf-surrender to the infinite life of truth and righteousness that is living and relgnin^r 
within me." This conscious inability in one's self, together with reception of "the stnn^ 
vkieh God sapplieth '* (1 Pat. 4: 11 ), is the secret of Paul's courage ; 2 Gor. 12 : iO— " whan I am waak, 
thm am I strong " ; PhiL 2 : 12, 13 — " mnrk out jonr om. aalTation vith bar and tramblin; ; far it ii God irlio worketh 
ill joa both to vill and to York, for his §[ood pleaaoro." 

O. No such ability known. — In addition to the psychological argu- 
ment just mentioned, we may urge another from experience and observa- 



643 ANTHROPOLOGY, OB THE DOCTRUTE OF HAK. 

tioiL These testify that man is cognizant of no snch ability. Since no 
man has ever yet, by the exercise of his natural powers, turned himself to 
Gk>d or done an act truly good in God's sight, the existence of a natural 
ability to do good is a pnre assomption. There is no scientific warrant 
for inferring the existence of an ability which has never manifested itself 
in a single instance since history b^^an. 



«»( 



' Solomon oould not keep the Proverbs, — so he wrote them.'* The book of Proverbs 
needs for its complement the New Testament explanation of helplessness and offer of 
help: Joknl5:5— "apartfirom nid'je eaa do nothing"; 6:37->"lLim that oomoth to mo I vill u no irist «aii 
oat.'* The palsied man^s inability to walk is very different from his indisposition to 
accept a remedy. The paralytic cannot climb the cliff, but by a rope let down to him 
he may be lifted up, provided he will permit himself to be tied to it. Darling, in Presb. 
and Bef . Bev^ July. 1901 : 605—*' If bidden, we can stretch out a withered arm ; but God 
does not require this of one bom armless. We may 'hour the roioe of the Son of God * and 
*liTe' (John 6 : S X but we shall not bring out of the tomb faculties not possessed before 
death." 

D. Practical evil of the belief. — The practical evil attending the preach- 
ing of natural ability furnishes a strong arg^ument against it. The Script- 
ures, in their declarations of the sinner's inability and helplessness, aim to 
shut him up to sole dependence upon God for salvation. Tha doctrine of 
natural ability, assuring him that he is able at once to repent and turn to 
God, encourages delay by putting salvation at all times within his reach. 
If a single volition will secure it, he may be saved as easily to-morrow as 
to-day. The doctrine of inability x^rcsscs men to inmiediate acceptance of 
God's o£fers, lest the day of grace for them pass by. 

Those who care most for self are those in whom self becomes thoroughly subjected 
and enslaved to external influences. Vat 16 : 25 — " whooooTor would lare his life ihall Iom it." The 
selfish man is a straw on the surface of a rushing stream. He IxHiomes more and more 
a victim of circumstance, until at last he has no more freedom than the brute. Pi. 49 : 20 
— ''Man that ii in honor, and nndantandoth not, It liko tho beaata that perish ;" see R. T. Smith, Man*8 
Knowledge of Mun and of God, 121. Robert Browning, unpublished poem : ** * Would a 
man *scape the rod ? ' Rabbi Ben Karshook saith, * See that be turn to Qod The day 
before his death.* ^ Aye, oould a man inquire When it shall come ? * I say. The Rabbi *8 
eye shoots fire — * Then let him turn to-day.' " 

Let US repeat, however, that the denial to man of all abiliiy, whether 
natural or moral, to turn himself to God or to do that which is truly good 
in God's sight, does not imply a denial of man's power to order his 
external life in many particulars conformably to moral rules, or even to 
attain the praise of men for virtue. Man has still a range of freedom in 
acting out his nature, and he may to a certain limited extent act down upon 
that nature, and modify it, by isolated volitions externally conformed to 
God's law. He may choose higher or lower forms of selfish action, and 
may pursue these chosen courses with various degrees of selfiflh energy. 
Freedom of choice, within this limit, is by no means incomimtible with 
complete bondage of the will in spiritual things. 

Johni:13— " born, not of blood, nor of tho will of the flash, nor of the will of man, bat of God " ; 3:5— "IxoepI 
one be bom of vator and tho Spirit, he oannot enter into the kingdom of God " ; 6 : 44 — "No man can oome to me, 
exoept the Father that lent ma draw him" ; 8:34 — "Imry one that oommitteth Bin is the bondaerrant of nn"; 15 : 4, 5 
— " tho branoh eannot bear fruit of itaelf .... apart from m« je can do nothing " ; Rom. 7: 18 — *'innu, that is, in 
mj flesh, dwelleth no good thing ; for to will is present with um, but to do that which is good is not " ; 24 -— " Wretched 
man that I am I who shall delirer me out of the bodj of this death ? " 8:7, 8— "the mind of the flesh is enmitj 
againitGod; liDritisnotsabjcct to the law of God, neither indeed can it be: and thej that are in the flesh eannot please 
6od"; lCor.2:14~"thaBataznlmanreeeiTethnotthathingi of the Spirit of God: ftr they an fboliihnaa onto him ; 



CONSEQUENCES OP SIN TO ADAM's POSTERITY. 643 

tnd he flumotknow them, beeaoMthej in ipiritaaUj Judged" ; 2 Oor. 3 :5— ''not tiutm are soiBdent of oomlTe^ 
toMOOont anything as from oonalTet"; 1]^ 2:1 — *'dead through your tre^amt and sins"; ^10 — "bygFMi 
haTe j9 been lated throagh Cuth ; and that not of youraelTea, it ii the gift of God ; not of vorki, that no man ihouli 
gloiy. For we are his vorkmanihip^ created in (&zist Jons fiir good vorks"; Ieb.ll:6— "vithootfiithitisimpoi- 
flible to be well-pleasing unto Urn." 

Ejint's *' I ouirht, therefore I can *' is the relic of man's origlna] consciousness of fre^ 
doni —the freedom with which man was endowed at his creation— a freedom, now, 
alas I destroyed by sin. Or it may he the courage of the soul In which God Is workinfir 
anew by his Spirit. For Kant's ** Ich soil, also Ich kann,*' Julius MUUer would substif- 
tute: '*Ich sollte frellich ktfnnen, aber Ich kann nlcht" — ''I ouffht Indeed to be 
able, but I am not able." Man truly repents only when he learns that his sin has made 
him unable to repent without the renewing grace of God. Emerson, In his poem 
entitled ** YoluntarinesB,** says : " So near is grandeur to our dust. So near Is Grod to 
man. When duty whispers low. Thou mitft. The youth replies, I can.** But, apart from 
special grace, all the ability which man at present possesses comes far short of fulfilling 
the spiritual demands of God's law. Parental and civil law implies a certain kind of 
power. Puritan theology called'man " free among the dead " ( Ps. 88 : 5^ A. Y. ). There was a 
range of freedom inside of slavery,— the wlU was **a drop of water Imprisoned In a 
solid crystal " ( Oliver Wendell Holmes ). The man who kills himself Is as dead as if he 
had been killed by another ( Shcdd, Dogm. Theol., S : 106 ). 

Westminster Confession, 9:3—" Bfan by his fall into a state of sin hath wholly lost 
all ability of will to any spiritual good acoompanylng salvation ; so, as a natural man« 
being altogether averse from that good and dead in sin, he is not able by his own 
strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto." Hopkins, Works, 1 : 288 
-236— ** So long as the sinner's opposition of heart and will continues, he cannot come 
to Christ. It is impossible, and will continue so, until his unwillingness and opposition 
be removed by a change and renovation of his heart by divine grace, and he be made 
willing in the day of God*s power." Hopkins speaks of ^* utter inability to obey the 
law of God, yea, utter impossibility." 

Hodge, Syst. TheoL, 2 : 257-277— ^ Inability consists, not in the loss of any fboulty of 
the soul, nor in the loss of free agency, for the sinner determines his own acta, nor in 
mere disinclination to what is good. It arises from want of spiritual discernment, ancT 
hence want of proper affections. Inability belongs only to the things of the Spirit. 
What man cannot do is to repent, believe, regenerate himself. He cannot put forth 
any act which merits the approbation of God. Sin cleaves to all he does, and from its 
dominion he cannot free himself. The distinction between natural and moral ability is 
of no value. Shall we say that the uneducated man can understand and appreciate the 
Iliad, because he has all the faculties that the scholar has? Shall we say that man can 
love God, if he will ? This is false, if will means volition. It is a truism, if will means 
affection. The Scriptures never thus address men and tell them that they have power 
to do all that God requires. It is dangerous to teach a man this, for until a man feels 
that he can do nothing, God never saves him. Inability is involved in the doctrine of 
original sin ; In the necessity of the Spirit^s influence in regeneration. Inability is oon- 
sistent with obligation, when inability arises from sin and is removed by the removal 
of 8in.'» 

Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:213-267, and In South Church Sermons, 33-^— *'The origin of 
this helplessness lies, not In creation, but in sin. God can command the ten talents or 
the five which he originally committed to us, together with a diligent and faithful 
improvement of them. Because the servant has lost the talents, is he discharged from 
obligation to return them with interest ? Sin contains in itself the element of servi- 
tude. In the very act of transgressing the law of God, there is a reflex action of the 
human will upon itself, whereby it becomes less able than before to keep that law. 
Sin is the suicidal action of the human will. To do wrong destroys the power to do 
right. Total depravity carries with it total impotence. The voluntary faculty may be 
ruined from within ; may be made Impotent to holiness, by its own action ; may sur- 
render itself to appetite and selfishness with such an intensity and earnestness, that it 
becomes unable to convert itself and overcome its wrong inclination." See Stevenson, 
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, —noticed in Andover Rev., June, 1886 : 664. We can merge 
ourselves in the life of another— either bad or good; can almost transform ourselves 
Into Satan or into Christ, so as to say with Paul, in Gal. 2 : 20— *it is no longer I that lire, bat 
Christ liteth in me"; or be minions of " the spirit that now worketh in the ions of disobedienioe'* (Iph. 2:2>. 
But if we yield ourselves to the influence of Satan, the reoovery of our true personality 
becomes increasingly diflBoult, and at last impossible. 



644 ▲srrHBOpt.pLOGTy ok the doctrixb or xajt. 



TVrre ji no^.tinjf in liZwrrAS'^r*: ak^!^r ^ir son* £irii^^Azit uaa tfaeaelf-bewalliiicof 
Ch^rii^ lAin^, tbe 9«mti^ FJJ.A. vsii> wr.^sf .n luf L*sc E«itj%.2l4— ""Coo^i ihe youth to 
wboic ti3^ fiATor of ti>r £r>!^ vtzK is •ieijf:i»7ia§ as tee <>p«ciri^ K«nes of iif« or the entcp- 
in^r of y>2E« c^rTly 'Ldcov^reii (And:*:, y-x/s. ict^j mj drsijttu>:>a, sc*! be made to ander^ 
itMui what a *inLrj thiz;^ it te Then be ihaU fe«{ hizuseif r^Asg d^j vn a predploe with 
op^zTi ef*A an4 a p«§iive wQl ; to see his ^«tractif»jcu aivl hare no power to ctop It ; to 
Kf; all grjf^\n^:ai emptMd oat of him, azid yeC ih>c be abte to foryet atixne when it was 
otberwLK ; to hear about the plteow speotacie of hx own mln, — cooid he fee mj- 
ttr^tinfi eye, fiever*^ with the laet ni^t's drinking, azki fereridhlj looking for to-aifffat'a 
rni^^ition of the folly ; couid be but feel the body of this death oat of which I cry hoorly, 
wif h feebler oatcry, to be ^'dreml, ft were enough to make him dMh the sparklinc 
t^%-»;nifr^ Uf th<^ earth, in all the pride of it« i&antllcg temptation.^ 

For the Arminian * gracious abUicy.' see BaymoutL Sysc TbeoL. S: 130: XcClinfeock k 
^tronsr. Cyclopif.-dia. Kr :S«a. I\r e»nUra, see Calvin. Instltatca. bk. 2. chap. S ( 1 :&£ ) ; 
Krlwardfl. Works, 2:441 rOrlg. Sin, 3:11; Bennet Tyler, Works* 73; Bdrd, Elohlm 
Ker#al«.-d, hS>-'A\ Cunninfrham, IIt*t. Theology. l:a£7-49; TurreCln. 10:4:19; A. A. 
Hrjd^e, Outlines of Thrroloiry. 3«>-«&; Thomwell, Theology, l:3M-3BO; Alexander, 
Moral Sr;iea<-e, iK^ai!; Princeton E^aiys. 1:34-29; RlchanU, LecCiixes oo Theokvy. 
(m T*iml as diatinguiahed from formal freedom, see Julius Mllller, Doct. Sin, £ :1-2S&. 
On Augustine's liti^ATM. nta crtr^rnui f of the divine Image in man ). see Wlggera, Augua- 
tlnLim and Pelagianism, 119, note. See aL^o art. by A. H. Strong, on Xodifled Oalrinism* 
or Kemalnden of FrMdom in Man. in Bap. Aev., lSb3 : 21»-34S ; and reprinted In the 
author's Philosophy and Beligion, I14-l;2i. 

n. Gm/r. 

L Nature of guilL 

"By gnflt we mean desert of pnnishment, or obligation to render satiB- 
iaction to GcKVa justice for self-determinixl violation of law. There is a 
reaction of holiness agoiuitt sin, wliioh the Scripture denominates "the 
wrath of God " ( Horn. 1 : 18 ). Siu is in n.s eitlier as act or state ; God*8 
pnnitive righteonsnesH is over against the sinner, as something to be feared; 
gnilt is a relation of the sinner to that righteousness, namely, the sinner's 
desert of pnnishment. 

Guilt is rr^Iated to sin as the burnt spot to the blaze. Schiller, Die Brant von MesBlna : 
**I>a8 LeUm ist der GUtor huchstes nicht; Dct Uebel grOsstes aber 1st die Schuld** 
" ** Life is not the highest of possessions ; the greatest of ills, however. Is guilt.** 
Dclitzseh: '*Die Schainrlithe ist die AbendrUtbe der untergegangvnen Sonne der 
ursprUngllchifn Gerccbtigkeit *'— ** The blush of shame is the ei-ening red after the sun 
of original right^HjusneKS bos gone down." E. G. Itobinson : ^ Pangs of conscience do 
not ari8<; f nun the fffar of penalty, ~ thry are the penalty itself.** See chapter on Ftg^ 
leav4;H. in Mcllvaine, Wisdom of Holy Scripture, 143-1&4 — ^ Spiritual shame for sin 
s<iught an outward symbol, and found it in the nakedness of the lower ports of the 
body/* 

The following remarks may serve both for proof and for explanation : 

A. Gnilt is incurred only through self -determined transgression either 
on the i>art of man's nature or person. We are guilty only of that sin 
-which wo have originated or have had part in originating. Guilt is not, 
therefore, mero liability to 2)unishment» without participation in the trans- 
gression for wliich the punishment is inflicted, — in other words, there is 
no such thing as constructive guilt under the divine govemmentb We are 
accounte<l guilty only for what we have done, either personally or in our 
first 2)arents, and for what we are, in consequence of such doing. 

11.18:20— '* the ion ihall not bear tlMiniqaitj of the fkther" -, as Calvin 8a3rs(Ooni.i» loco): **The 
son Hliiill not l>ear the father's iniquity, since he shall receive the reward due to himself, 
anil shiiU Ixmr his own burden. • . . All are guilty through their own fault. . • . Every 
one iierlshes through his own iniquity.** In other words, the whole race fell In Adam, 



CONSEQUENCES OP SIN TO ADAM's POSTEBITT. 646 

and ifl punlsbed for its own sin in him, not for the sins of Immediate ancestors, nor for 
the sin of Adam as a person forei^rn to us. John 9:3 — " Meither did this mia lin, oorhiB parenU" 
( that he should be born blind ) — Do not attribute to any special later sin what is a con- 
sequence of the sin of the race— the first sin which " brought death into the world, n p*\ 
all our woe.*' Shedd, Dogm. TheoL, 2 : 196-213. 

B. Gxiilt is an objective result of sin, and is not to be confounded wiih 
subjective pollution, or depravity. Every sin, whether of nature or per- 
son, is an o£fense against God (Ps. 51 : 4-6 ), an act or state of opposition 
to his "will, which has for its effect God's personal wrath ( Ps. 7 : 11 ; John 
3 : 18, 36 ), and which must be expiated either by punishment or by atone- 
ment ( Heb. 9 : 22 ). Not only does sin, as unlikeness to the divine purity, 
involve pollution, — it also, as antagonism to God's holy will, involves guilt. 
This guilt, or obligation to satisfy the outraged holiness of God, is explained 
in the New Testament by the terms " debtor" and " debt " ( Mat. 6 : 12 ; 
Luke 13 : 4 ; Mat 5 : 21 ; Rom. 3 : 19 ; 6 : 23 ; Eph. 2 : 3). Since guilt, 
the objective result of sin, is entirely distinct from depravity, the subjective 
result, human nature may, as in Ohrist, have the guilt without the deprav- 
ity ( 2 Cor. 5 : 21 ), or may, as in the Christian, have the depravity without 
the guilt ( IJohn 1 :7, 8). 

Pi. 5i : 4-4 ~ ** Against tli60, th«6 only, luTe I iimwd,iJidd(me (hAtvUebiieTil in thj Bight; That thou Dutyait ba 
Justifled irhsD. thoa ipeakeit, ind b« dear when thou jadgeat " ; 7 : ii — "Godis arightaoos judge, Tea, a God that hath 
indignation arery day " ; John 8 : 18 — "ha that beliaTath not hath been judged already "; 86 — " ha that obejath not 
the Son ihall not tea life, hat the vrath of God abideth on him" ; leb. 9 : 22— "apart from shedding of blood there is 
noreminion"; ]fai6:i2— "debts"; LnkelS :4— "oifendflrB" (margr. "debton"); Mat 5: 21 — "shall be in 
danger of [ ezpoeed to ] the judgment" ; Rom. 3 : 19 — " that . . . . all tha world may be brought under tha 
judgment of God " ; 6 : 23 — " tha wages of sin is death " - death is sin's desert ; Iph. 2 : 3 — "by natora 
ohildren of wrath"; 2 Gor. 5 : 21 — "Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf " ; i Johnl :7,8— "ths 
blood of Jesus his Son daaasath nsfirom all sin. [ Yet ] If wa say that wa haTa no sin, wa daoaiTa oonalTaSt and tha 
truth is not in us." 

Sin brings in its train not only depravity but grullt, not only macula but reatus. Script- 
ure sets forth the poUuti4m of sin by its simllies of ** a cage of unclean birds" and of 
** wounds, bruises, and putrefying sores " ; by leprosy and Levltical undeanness, under 
the old dispensation ; by death and the corruption of the grave, under both the old and 
the new. But Scripture sets forth the (piUt of sin, with equal vividnesB, in the fear of 
Cain and in the remorse of Judas. The revulsion of Qo6*b holiness from sin, and its 
demand for satisfaction, are reflected In the shame and remorse of every awakened 
conscience. There Is an Instinctive feeling in the sinner's heart that sin will be pun- 
ished, and ought to be punished. But the Holy Spirit makes'tlils need of reparation so 
deeply felt that the soul has no rest until its debt is paid. The offending church mem- 
ber who is truly penitent loves the law and the church which excludes him, and would 
not think it faithful if it did not. So Jesus, when laden with the guilt of the race, 
proasod forward to the cross, saying : "I haTsabaptism to be baptised with ; and how am I stnitanad tiU 
itbeaooomplishedl"(lnkel2:50; Mark 10:82). 

All sin involves guilt, and the sinful soul Itself demands penalty, so that all will ulti- 
mately go where they most desire to be. All the great masters in literature have recog- 
nized this. The inextinguishable thirst for reparation constitutes the very essence of 
tragedy. The Greek tragedians are full of it» and Shakespeare is its most impressive 
teacher : Measure for Measure, 6 : 1 — ^* I am sorry that such sorrow I procure. And so 
deep sticks it in my penitent heart That I crave death more willingly than mercy ; 'T is 
my deserving, and I do entreat it *' ; Cymbeline, 6:4—*^ and so, great Powers, Jf you 
will take this audit, take this life. And cancel these cold bonds I . . . . Desired, more 
than constrained, to satisfy, .... take No stricter render of me than my all ** ; that is, 
settle the account with me by taking my life, for nothing less than that will pay my 
debt. And later writers follow Shakespeare. Marguerite, in Goethe's Fftust, ftiinting 
in the great cathedral under the solemn reverberations of the Dies Irse ; Dimmesdale, 
in Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter, putting himself side by side with Hester Prynne, his 
victim, in her place of obloquy; Bulwer^s Eugene Aram, coming forward, though 
unsuspected, to confess the murder he had committed, all these are illustratioDs of the 



646 ANTHIIOPOLOGY, OR THB DOCTRINE OF MAN. 

liitior Jmiiulflo that moves even a sinful soul to satisfy the oUlms of Justloe upon K. 
H(>e A. II. Htrong, Phikwophy and Ueliff ion, 215, 216. On Hawthorne, see Button, 
BwuiyH, 2 : .'{70-410—*' In the Scarlet Letter, the minister gains fresh reverenoe and pop- 
ularity as the very fruit of the passionate ang^uish with which his heart is oonsomed. 
Frantic with the stings of unacknowledged guilt, ho is yet taught by these very stingi 
to undcrstfuid the hearts and stir the consciences of others." See also Dlnsmore, 
Atonement in Literature und Life. 

Nor are such scenes confined to the pages of romance. In a recent trial at Syracuse^ 
Karl, the wifiMuurderer, thanked the Jury that had convicted him ; declared the verdict 
Just ; beggiHl that no one would interfere to stay the course of Justice ; said that the 
gnfiitoHt I)h>s8lng that could Ik) conferred on him would be to let him suffer the penalty 
of his crime. In Plattsburg, at the close of another trial in which the accused was a 
life-convict wht) had stnu'k down a fellow-convict with an axe, the jury, after beinjr 
out twu hours, came in to ask the Judge to explain the difference between murder in the 
first and second degree. Suddenly the prisoner rose and said : ** This was not a murder 
in the second degree. It was a deliberate and premeditated murder. I know that a 
have done wrong, that I ought to confess the truth, and that I ought to be hanged.** 
This left the Jury nothing to do but i-ender their verdict, and the Judge sentenced the 
murderer to be hunge<l, as he confessed he deserved to be. In 1891, Lars Ostendahl, the 
most famous preacher of Norway, startled his hearers by publicly confessing that he 
had b<H>n guilty of ininiorality, and that ho could no longer retain his pastorate. He 
beggtHl his i)eople for the sake of Christ to forgive him and not to desert the poor in his 
asylums. He was not only preacher, but also head of a great philanthropic work. 

8ucb is the movement and demand of the enlightened conscience. The lack of con- 
viction that crime ought to be punished is one of the most certain signs of moral decay 
in either the imlividual or the nation (Ps.»7: 10 — "Ta that lore the Lord, hate eTil"; 149:6— "Lei 
the high pruM of God be ia their moath, ind a two-edged sword in their hand " — to execute God*B Judg^ 
ment upon iniquity). 

This reflation of sin to Ood shows us how Christ is "made tin on oor behalf" (20or.5:Sl). 
Since Christ is the immanent God, he is also essential humanity, the universal man, the 
life of the race. All the nerves and sensibilities of humanity meet in him. Ho is the 
central brain to which and thn)ugh which all ideas must pass. He is the central heart 
to which and through which all ))ains must be communicated. You cannot telephone 
to your friend across the town without first ringing up the cc>ntral office. You cannot 
injure your neighbor without first injuring Christ. Each one of us can say of him : 
*'igaiDat thee, thee onlj, hare I tinned" (Pa. 51 : 4). Because of his central and all-inclusive 
humanity, Christ can feel all the pangs of shame and suffering which rightfully 
belong to'Sinners, but which they cannot feel, because their sin has stupefied and dead- 
ened them. The Mi>S8iah, if he be truly man, must bo a suffering Messiah. For the 
very reason of liis humanity he must Ixjar in his own person all the guilt of humanity 
and must l>e " the Lamb of God who " takes, and so " taliesaway, the sin of the world " ( John i : 29 ). 

Guilt and depravity are not only distinguishable in thought,— they are also soparablo 
in fact. The convicted murderer might rei>ent and become pure, yet he might still bo 
under obligation to suffer the punishment of his crime. The Christian is freed from 
guilt ( Rom. 8:1), but he is not yet freed from depravity ( Rom. 7 : 23 ). Christ, on the other 
hand, was under obligation to suffer ( Lake 24 : 26 ; lets 3: 18; 26:23), while yet ho was 
without sin (Heb. 7:26). In tho book entitled Modem Religious Thought, 3-29, B. J. 
Campbell has an essay on The Atonement, with which, apart from its view as to the 
origin of moral evil in God, we are in substantial agreement. He holds that ** to relievo 
men from their sense of guilt, objective atonement is necessary," — we would say : to 
nilieve men from guilt itself — the obligation to suffer. ** If Christ be tho eternal Son 
of God, that side of the divine nature which has gone forth in creation, if he contains 
humanity and is present in every article and act of human exi)crience, then he is asso- 
ciated with tho existence of the primordial evil. . . . He and only ho can sever the 
entail l)<'twe<;n man and his responsibility for personal sin. Christ has not sinned in 
man, but he takes responsibility for that exiK»rience of evil into which humanity is 
born, and tho yielding to which constitutes sin. Ho go<» forth to suffer, and actually 
does suffer, in man. The eternal Son in whom humanity is contained is therefore a suf- 
ferer since creation began. This mysterious passion of Deity must continue until 
red(?mption is consummated and humanity restore*! to God. Thus every consequence 
of human ill Is f(;lt in the experieiic*e of Christ. Thus Christ not only assumes the guilt 
but bears the punishment of every human soul." We claim however that the neces- 
sity of this suffering lies, not In tho needs of man, but in the holiness of God. 



OOHSEQUENOES OF SIN TO ADAM's POSTSBITY. 647 

0. Guilty moreover, as an objective result of sm, is not to be oonf oonded 
with the subjective consciousness of guilt ( Lev. 5 : 17 )• In the condem- 
nation of conscience, Gk)d's condemnation partially and propheticallj mani- 
fests itself ( 1 John 3 : 20 ). But guilt is primarily a relation to God, and 
only secondarily a relation to conscience. Progress in sin is marked by 
diminished sensitiveness of moral insight and feeling. As ' ' the greatest of 
sins is to be conscious of none," so guilt may be great, just in proportion 
to the absence of consciousness of it ( Ps. 19 : 12 ; 51 : 6 ; Eph. 4 : 18, 19 
— dTTT/XyT^KdTec ). There is no evidence, however, that the voice of conscience 
can be completely or finally silenced. The time for repentance may pass, 
but not the time for remorse. Progress in holiness, on the other hand, is 
marked by increasing apprehension of the depth and extent of our sinful- 
ness, while with this apprehension is combined, in a normal Christian expe- 
rience, the assurance that the guilt of our sin has been taken, and taken 
away, by Christ (John 1 : 29 )• 

Lev. S ;17~'*ABd if tny one an, and do tny af tlw Udngi whMi Jthflrah hath BrnnniMulnd nat tolw d«e; thmghht 
knew it not, jot is be goitty, ud shall bearhii iniqni^"; 1 Joh&3:20— "beoania if oar heart ooDd«ua%aodia 
greater than our heart, and knoweth allthiogB*'; F8.19:12— "WhooandiBoenihiserron? Clear thoa mo iirem hid- 
den faults " ; 51 : 6 —"Behold, thoa daiireet truth in the inward parts; And in the hidden part thoa wilt make sm to 
know wisdom" ; Iph. 4: 18) 19— "darkened in their nnderstanding . • • • being paat fraUng"; Johnl : 29— 
''Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh awBj [marg. *baax«th *] the lia of the world." 

Plato, Bcpublio, 1 :830— ** When death approaches, cares and alarms awake, espe- 
cially the fear of hell and its punishments." Cioero, De Divin., 1 : 80— ^ Then oomes 
remorse for evil deeds.** Persius, Satire 8—** His vice benumbs him; his fibre has 
become fat ; he is conscious of no fault ; ho knows not the loss he sulfers ; he is so far 
sunk, that there is not even a bubble on the surface of the deep." Shakespeare, Ham- 
let, 3:1 — '* Thus conscience doth make cowards of us all" ; 4 : 6— " To my sick soul, as 
sin's true nature is. Each toy seems prologue to some great amiss; So full of artless 
jealousy is guilt. It spills itself in fearing to be spilt " ; Richard III. 6 : 8 — ** O coward 
conscience, how thou dost afflict me I • . • My conscience hath a thousand several 
tongues, and every tongue brings in a several tale. And every tale condemns me for a 
villain " ; Tempest, 8:8—" All three of them are desperate ; their great guilt. Like 
poison given to work a great time after. Now 'gins to bite the spirits " ; Ant. and Gleop^ 
8:9—** When we in our viciousnoss grow hard ( O misery on 't I ) the wise gods seel 
our eyes ; In our own filth drop our clear Judgments ; make us Adore our errors ; laugh 
at us, while we strut To our confusion." 

Dr. Shodd said once to a graduating class of young theologians : ^ Would that upon 
the naked, palpitating heart of each one of you might be laid one redhot coal of Gkxl 
Almighty*s wrath I " Yes, we add, if pnly that redhot coal might be quenched by one red 
drop of Christ's atoning blood. Dr. H. B. Bobins : **To the convicted sinner a merely 
external hell would be a oooling flame, compared with the agony of his remorse." 
John Milton represents Satan as saying: ** Which way I fly is hell; myself am hclL" 
James Martinoau, Life by Jackson, 190— ** It is of the easence of guilty declension to 
administer its own ansesthetics.'* But this deadening of conscience cannot last always. 
Conscicnoo is a mirror of God's holiness. We may cover the mirror with the veil of 
this world's diversions and deceits. When the veil is removed, and conscience again 
reflects the sunliko purity of God's demands, we are visited with self-loathing and self- 
con tempt. John Galrd, Fund. Ideas, 2 : 25— *' Though it may cast ofT every other ves- 
tige of its divine origin, our nature retains at least this one terrible prerogative of it« 
the capacity of preying on itself.'* Lyttclton in Lux Mundi, 277 — ** The common fiil- 
lacy that a self-indulgent sinner is no one's enemy but his own would, were it true, 
involve the further Inference that such a sinner would not feel himself guilty." If 
any dislike the doctrine of guilt, let them remember that without wrath there is no 
pardon, without guilt no forgiveness. See, on the nature of guilt, Julius MtUler, Doot. 
Sin, 1 : 19;^-2»7 ; Marteuscn, Christian Dogmatics, 208-208 ; Thomasius, Ohristi Person und 
Werk, 1 :344t; Dtiird, Elohlm Revealed, 461-473; Delltzsch, Bib. Psychologie. 121-148; 
Thornwell, Theology, 1 : 400-424. 






r ?»-"-- 




t*.-,- "^t-y-^- *Li.» ^-f ^t:ii^«Ki c izxi sztf lif <i:cizl235l:c. =:iz% ^■«^'-'\ g^^^*^ the 



i^rr cciissajc ii &=. ics if oi' — ^y?r:» 






•ir. «jnu.-jc<: tiZfr H .7 Oi ■«•-' -tT * - :•: :o» 2* vtc-iu i^ nsic_f — ':c 'a* 'asam 
?/-.n *,-- %;or-AK •?"-*.-* kJi : =it- — -«•. ■ '*'t ijiiil •e^- I- -wf-Tr. liar 'Jx ^=«^«3ee to 

'l«*>t«^-.t ft£<l iiK>'.«t«ijec -.1!: V. tie ci =•:£_*" 



cit fhxrT':^^ of jn£: : 

A. Sia of LAt^i*, And pcrs.r=al tr&nsgTeasioc. 

Sill of LAtnre inTvlres gnilt, vet there is gr«Aier cnih when this sin of 
rA?-irf; r'ainfifcrts hrtrfilf in pcr&iijJ traijcr«s:--^z ; f-:r, wtile this latter 
iZin'.'A'^, in h,~^'J tie finer, it also aJis to the fomer a new element, 
lAi:.':! 7, the oozj^o-ii! eiereise of the iz^diri J::al and pers^:*::^! trCi, br Tirtne 
of 'sr.ich a neir decLsion is Tr.AJe agair^ God, sj^EcisJ edl habit is indaced, 
aL'l the t/-»tal ooi.dition of the s«--:il is made more deprared. Alrhongh ve 
L;ivr; 4:zu\>\j%ri2^A the r^t of inbijm fdn, beca:ise this truth is mo6t con- 
t/**';d, it Ls to >je remembered that men reach a convictfon of their native 
d^fira'.-itv orJr throngh a conviction of their personal traii5£rre9Bion& For 
thiA r*ts%r/ fii^ bv far the larger part of oar preaching nivn sin should con- 
fdrt in applications of the law of Ciod to the acts and dispositions of men's 

liV':ft. 



bL :3:U-*- to MiibiuwvatetizfAaifkMTs". relative iimownoe of cfaiMb^ S:9« 
"K: 7« ^ '.MAUABMfiR «f 7xr 2uMn " - penooal tnLoaipnaasioa anivWa to inherit^ JefNrmvJtj-. 
In preacbiniCf we iboaid first treat lodividQal tzaosgroasiaiis* and thenoe i^ oeeul to 



CONSEQUENCES OF SIN TO ADAM'S POSTERITY. 649 

boart-siii, and raoo-ein. Man is not wholly a spontaneous development of inborn ten- 
dencies, a manifestation of original sin. Motives do not determine but they persuade 
the will, and every man is flruilty of conscious personal transorrcssions which may, with 
the help of the Holy Spirit, be brought under the condemning' Judirment of conscience. 
Birks, Difficulties of Belief, 16»-m—*' Original sin does not do away with the signifi- 
cance of personal transgression. Adam was pardoned ; but some of his descendants are 
unpardonable. The second death is referred, in Scripture, to our own personal guilt.** 
This is not to say that original sin docs not involve as great sin as that of Adam in 
the first transgression, for original sin is the sin of the first transgression ; it is only to 
say that personal transgression is original sin piu8 the conscious ratification of Adam's 
act by the individuaL *^ We are gruilty for what we are^ as much as for what we do. 
Our 8in is not simply the sum total of all our sins. There ia& sinfulness which is the 
common denominator of all our sins.'* It is customary to speak lightly of original sin, 
as if personal sins were all for which man is accountable. But it is only in the light of 
original sin that personal sins can be explained. Pfot. 14 : 9, marg. — ** Fools malu a mock at sin." 
Simon, Reconciliation, 12S—> *' The sinfulness of individual men varies; the sinfulness 
of humanity is a constant quantity." Rol)ert Browning, Ferishtah's Fancies : ** Man 
lumps his kind i* the mass. God singles thence unit by unit. Thou and God exist— 
So think I for certain : Think the mass— mankind ~ Disparts, disperses, leaves thjrself 
alone I Ask thy lone soul what laws are plain to thee,— Thou and no other, stand or 
fall by them I That is the part for thee." 

B. Sins of ignorance, and sins of knowledge. 

Here guilt is measured by the degree of light possessed, or in other words, 
by the opportunities of knowledge men have enjoyed, and the powers with 
which they have been naturally endowed. Genius and privilege increase 
responsibility. The heathen are guilty, but those to whom the orades of 
Qbd have been oommitted are more guilty than they. 

Hat 10:15 — ''moretolerablefor tlulaadof SodomaiidOoiiiorrKliin thedajofJadgmaBt, tbaa fir that dty ** ; Luke 
12: 47, 48— "that Mrrant, vho kiMW his Lord's vill .... shall bs boaten vith many stripes ; bat he that knew not 
.... shall be beaten vith few stripes" ; 23:34— > '^ Father, fixr^re them; forthej know not what thej do" « com- 
plete knowledge would put them beyond the reach of forfrivencss. John 19:11— ''he that 
delirered me nntothee hath greater sin " ; lets 17 : 30 — "The timet of ignoranoe therefore God OTeriooked " ; Rom. 1 : 32 

— " who, knowing the ordinanoe of God, that thej that practise sneh things are worthy of death, not only do the same, 
bat also consent with them that pnuitiae them"; 2: 12 — "For asmsny as hare sinned without the law shall also perish 
withoat the law : and u many as hafe sinned under the law shall be judged by the law" ; ifio. 1 : 13^ 15, 16 — "I 
obtained merqy. because I did it ignorantly in unbeliet'* 

Is. 42:19— "Who is blind .... as JehoTah'sserrant?'* Itwas the Pharisees whom Jceus warned 
of the sin acrainst the Holy Spirit. The sruilt of the crudflzion rested on Jews rather 
than on Gentiles. Apostate Israel was more fruilty than the paifans. The irreatest 
sinners of the present day may be in Christendom, not in heathendom. Satan was an 
archangel ; Judas was an apostle ; Alexander Borgia was a pope. Jackson, James 
Martineau, S62 — " Corruptio optimi pcssima est, as seen in a drunken Webster, a treach- 
erous Bacon, a licentious Gk)ethc." Sir Roger de Ooverley observed that none but men 
of fine parts deserve to be hanged. Kaftan, Dogmatik, 817 — ** The greater sin often 
involves the lesser guilt; the lesser sin the greater guilt." Robert Browning, The 
Ring and the Book, 227 ( Pope, 1975) —** There 's a new tribunal now Higher than God's, 

— the educated man's I Nice sense of honor in the human breast Supersedes here the 
old coarse oracle I " Dr. H. K Robins holds that ** palliation of guilt according to light 
is not possible under a system of pure law, and is possible only because the probation of 
the sinner is a probation of grace.'* 

C. Sins of infirmity, and sins of presumption. 

Here the guilt is measured by the energy of the evil will. Sin may be 
known to be sin, yet may be committed in haste or weakness. Though 
haste and weakness constitute a palliation of the offence which springs 
therefrom, yet they are themselves sins, as revealing an unbelieving and 
disordered heart. But of far greater guilt are those presumptuous choices 
of evil in which not weakness, but strength of will, is manifest 



■~ *'^A 



.« .^Tn. .K 



CONSEQUENCES OF SIN TO ADAM'S POSTERrTY. 651 

either profoundly indifferent to his own condition, or activelj and bittcrlj 
hostile to God ; so that anxiety or fear on account of one's condition is 
evidence that it has not been committed. The sin against the Holy Spirit 
cannot be forgiven, simply because the soul that has committed it has 
ceased to be receptive of divine influences, even when those influences are 
exerted in the utmost strength which €k>d has seen fit to employ in his 
spiritual administration. 

The commission of this sin is marked by a loss of splrltoal sight ; the blind fish of the 
Mammoth Cave left light for darkness, and so in time lost their eyes. It is marked by 
a loss of religious sensibility ; the sensitive-plant loses its sensitiveness, in proportion to 
the frequency with which it is touched. It is marked by a loss of power to will the 
good ; *' the lava hardens after it has broken from the crater, and in that state cannot 
return to its source*' (Van Oosterzee). The same writer also remarks ( Dogrmatics, 
2 : 438 ) : *' Herod Antipas, after earlier doubt and slavishness, reached such deadncss as 
to be able to mock the Savior, at the mention of whose name ho had not long before 
trembled.*' Julius Mtlller, Doctrine of Sin, 2 : 425— '* It is not that divine grace is abso- 
lutely refused to any one who in true penitence asks forgiveness of this sin ; but he who 
commits it never fulfills the subjective conditions upon which forgiveness is possible, 
because the aggravation of sin to this ultimatum destroys In him all susceptibility of 
repentance. The way of return to God is closed against no one who does not close it 
against himself." Drummond, Natural Law in the Spiritual World, 07-120, illustrates 
the downward progress of the sinner by the law of degeneration in the vegetable and 
animal world : pigeons, roses, strawberries, all tend to revert to the primitive and wild 
type. "lov shall ve eio&p^ if ve ntglaei m gnat a nlTation ?" ( HaKS: 8). 

Shakespeare, Macbeth, 3:5— "You all know security Is mortals' cbiefest enemy." 
Moulton, Shakespeare as a Dramatic Artist, 90-124—** Richard III is the ideal villain. 
Villainy has become an end in itself. Richard is an artist in villainy. He lacks the 
emotions naturally attending crime. He regards villainy with the intellectual enthu- 
siasm of the artist. His villainy is ideal in its success. There is a fascination of irresis- 
tibility in him. He is im perturbable in his crime. There is no effort, but rather humor, 
in it ; a recklessness which suggests boundless resources ; an inspiration which excludes 
calculation. Shakespeare relieves the representation from the charge of monstrosity 
by turning all this villainous history into the unconscious development of Nemesis.'* 
See also A. H. Strong, Great Poets, 188-198. Robert Browning's Guide, in The Ring 
and the Book, is an example of pure hatred of the good. Guide hates Pompilia for her 
goodness, and declares that, if he catches her in the next world, he will murder her 
there, as he murdered her here. 

Alexander VI, the father of Gsesar and Lucrezia Borgia, the pope of onielty and 
lust, wore yet to the day of his death the look of unfailing joyousness and geniality, 
yes, of even retiring sensitiveness and modesty. No fear or reproach of conscience 
seemed to throw gloom over his life, as in the cases of Tiberius and Louis XI. He 
believed himself under the special protection of the Virgin, although ho had her 
painted with the features of his paramour, Julia Famese. He never scrupled at false 
witness, adultery, or murder. See Gregorovius, Lucrezia Borgia, 294, 295. Jeremy 
Taylor thus describes the progress of sin in the sinner : ** First it startles him, then it 
becomes pleasing, then delightful, then frequent, then habitual, then confirmed ; then 
the man is impenitent, then obstinate, then resolved never to repent, then damned." 

There is a state of utter insensibility to emotions of love or fear, and man by his sin 
may reach that state. The act of blasphemy is only the expression of a hardened or a 
hateful heart. B. H. Payne : **The calcium flame will char the steel wire so that it is 
no longer affected by the magnet. .... As the blazing cinders and black curling 
smoke which the volcano spews from its rumbling throat are the accumulation of 
months and years, so the sin against the Holy Spirit is not a thoughtless expression in 
a moment of passion or rage, but the giving vent to a state of heart and mind abound- 
ing in the accumulations of weeks and months of opposition to the gospel.*' 

Dr. J. P. Thompson : **The unpardonable sin is the knowing, wilful, persistent, con- 
temptuous, malignant spuming of divine truth and grace, as manifested to the soul by 
the convincing and illuminating power of the Holy Ghost." Domer says that ** there- 
fore this sin does not belong to Old Testament times, or to the mere revelation of law. 
It implies the full revelation of the grace in Christ, and the conscious rejection of it l3| 



652 ANTHBOPOLOGY, OR THE DOCTRINE OF MAN. 

a soul to which the Spirit has made It manifest ( ieti 17: 80 — "The times of ignoFUM, ikenhn, 
God overlookad " ; Rom. 3:25— "the pi«ing over (tfthodiif dona afbretime")." But was it not under t ho 
Old Testament that Ood said : "Vy Spirit shall not itriTo with man fcreTor" (6«n.6:3),and "IphFaua 
ii Joined to idols; let him alone" (Hoeea 4:17)7 Tho sin against the Holy Ghost is aslnacrainst 
graoo, but it does not appear to be limited to New Testament times. 

It is still true that the unpardonable sin Is a sin committed against the Holy Spirit 
rather than against Christ : Kat 12 :32 — " vhoaooTer shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be 
ftfglTen him ; but vhoeoeTor shall speak against the Holj Spirit it shall not be fbri^Ten him, neither in this world, nor 
inthat whiflh is to come." Jesus warns the Jews against it,— he does not say they had already 
oommitted it. They would seem to have committed it when, after Pontocoet, they 
added to their rejection of Christ the rejection of the Holy Spirit's witness to Christ *8 
resurrection. See Schaff, Sin against the Holy Ghost ; Lemme, SUndo wider den Heili- 
gen Geist; Davis, in Bap. Rev., 1882:817-326; Nltzsch, Christian Doctrine, 283-389. On 
the general sabjeot of kinds of sin and degrees of guilt, see Kahnis, Dogmatik, 
8:284,208. 

in. Pbnai/tt. 

1. Idea of penalty. 

"Bj penalty, we mean that pain or loss which is directly or indirectly 
inflicted by the Lawgiver, in vindication of his justice outraged by the 
violation of law. 

Turretin, 1 : 218 — "Justice necessarily demands that all sin be punished, but it docs 
not equally demand that it bo punished in the very person that sinned, or in Just such 
time and degree." So far as this statement of the great Federal theologian is intended 
to explain our gruilt in Adam and our Justification in Christ, we can assent to his words ; 
but we must add that the reason, in each case, why we suffer tho penalty of Adam*ssin, 
and Christ suffers the penalty of our sins, is not to be found in any covenant-relation, 
but rather in the f&ot that the sinner is one with Adam, and Christ is one with the 
believer,— in other words, not covenant-unity, but iife-unity. The word * penalty,' 
like * pain,' Is derived from pcpna^ voiki), and it implies tho correlative notion of desert. 
As under the divine government there can be no constructive onQU so there can be no 
p^noUv inflicted by legal fiction. Christ's sufferings wore penalty, not arbitrarily 
inflicted, nor yet borne to expiate personal guilt, but as the Just due of tho human 
nature with which he had united himself, and a part of which ho was. Prof. Wm. Adams 
Brown : *' Loss, not suffering, is the supreme penalty for Christians. The real penalty 
is separation from God. If such separation involves sufft^ring, that is a sign of God's 
mercy, for where there is life, there is hope. Suffering is always to be interpreted as an 
appeal from God to man." 

In this definition it is implied that : 

A. The natural conseqaences of transgression, although thoy constitute 
a part of the x)enalty of sin, do not exhaust that penalty. In all penalty 
there is a jiersoual element — the holy wrath of the Lawgiver, — which nat- 
ural consequences but partially express. 

We do not deny, but rather assert, that the natural consequences of transgression 
are a part of the penalty of sin. Sensual sins are punished, in the deterioration and 
corruption of the body; mental and spiritual sins, in the deterioration and corrupticm 
of the soul. ProT. 6 : 22— "Hii owniniqnitiat ihall taka the wioked. And hs shall be holden with the oorda of hia 
■in" —as tho hunter is caught in the tolls which he has devised for the wild boast. Sin is 
self -detecting and self -tormenting. But this is only half the truth. Those who wou Id 
confine all penalty to the reaction of natural laws are in danercr of forgetting that God 
is not simply immanent in the universe, but is also transcendent, and that "to &11 into the 
haadi of tha liring God" ( HaK 10: 31 ) is to fall into the hands, not simply of the law, but also of 
the Lawgiver. Natural law is only the regular expression of God's mind and wilL We 
abhor a person who is foul in body and in speech. There is no penalty of sin more 
dreadful than its being an object of abhorrence to God. Jar. 44 : 4 —"Oh, do not this abominabte 
thing that I hato 1 *' Add to this the law of continuity which makes sin reproduce itself, and 
the law of conscience which makes sin its own detector, Judge, and tormentor, and we 
have sufildent evidence of God's wrath against it, apart from any external inflictions. 



COKSEQtJBKCES OP 8IK TO ADAM's POSTBRITY. 663 

Tbe divino feeling toward sin is seen in Jesus* scourglnfr the traffickers in the tempkv 
his denunciation of the Pharisees, his woepinf? over Jerusalem, his a^rony in Gtethsemane. 
Inuuirlnetho feelin^r of a father toward his daughter's betrayer, and God's feelinff 
toward sin may bo faintly understood. 

The deed returns to the doer, and character determines destiny — this law is a iwela- 
tion of the righteousness of G od. Penalty will vindicate the divine character in the long 
run, though not always in time. This is recognized in all religions. Buddhist priest in 
Japan: *'Thc evil doer weaves a web around himself, as the silkworm weaves its 
cocoon.** Socrates made Circe's turning of men into swine a mere parable of the self- 
brutalizing influence of sin. In Dante's Inferno, the punishments are all of them the 
Bins themselves ; hence men are in hcU before they die. Hegel : ** Penalty is the other 
half of crime." R. W. Emerson : ^ Punishment not follows, but accompanies, crime." 
Sagebeer, The Bible in Court, 58— ** Corruption is destruction, and the sinner is a 
suiddo ; penalty corresponds with transgression and is the outcome of it; sin is death 
in the making ; death is sin in the final infliction." J. B. Thomas, Baptist Congress, 
1901 : 110 — ** What matters it whether I wait by night for the poacher and deliberately 
shoot him, or whether I set the pistol so that he shall be shot by it when he oommita the 
depredation?" Tennyson, Sea Dreams: **Hl8 gain is loss; for he that wrongs his 
friend Wrongs himself more, and ever bears about A silent court of Justice in his 
breast. Himself the Judge and Jury, and himself The prisoner at the bar, ever oon- 
demn'd : And that drags down his life : then comes what comes Hereafter.*' 

B. The object of penalt j is not the reformation of the offender or the 
ensuring of social or governmental safety. These ends maybe incidentally 
secured through its infliction, but the great end of penally is the vindica- 
tion of the character of the Lawgiver. Penalty is essentially a necessary 
reaction of the divine holiness against sin. Inasmuch, however, as wrong 
views of the object of penalty have so important a bearing upon our future 
studies of doctrine, we make fuller mention of .the two erroneous theories 
which have greatest currency. 

( a ) Penalty is not essentially reformatory. — By this we mean that the 
reformation of the offender is not its primary design, — as penalty, it is not 
intended to reform. Penalty, in itself, proceeds not from the love and 
mercy of the Lawgiver, but from his justice. Whatever reforming influ- 
ences may in any given instance be connected with it are not parts of the 
penalty, but are mitigations of it, and they are added not in justice but in 
grace. If reformation follows the infliction of penalty, it is not the effect 
of the penalty, but the effect of certain benevolent agencies which have 
been provided to turn into a means of good what naturally would be to the 
offender only a source of harm. 

That the object of penalty is not reformation appears from Scripture, 
where punishment is often referred to God's justice, but never to Qod*s 
love ; from the intrinsic ill-desert of sin, to which penalty is correlative ; 
from the fact that punishment must be vindicative, in order to be disciplin- 
ary, and just, in order to be reformatory ; from the fact that upon this 
theory punishment would not be just when the sinner was already reformed 
or could not be reformed, so that the greater the sin the less the punish- 
ment must be. 

Punishment is essentially difiTerent from chastisement. The latter proceeds from love 

(J«r.l0:24— "oogrrsetme^batinmaaian; not in thiiM aa^ " ; lab. 12:6— "whom tkeUriloTatb ha ohutflMtk"). 
Punishment proceeds not from love but from Justice— see Ii.28:22-~*'IihAllh&Ta«xMiitid 
Ittdgmenti in bar, and shall be lanotifiad in her " ; S6 : 21, 22— in Judgment, "I do not this tat joar takib, but 
forn^ holy namo"; EeK 12:29— "our God iiaoonsamingflro"; Rot. 15:1.4 — "vrath ofOod .... thononlyart 
holy .... thy rightooos acts have boon made maniftst*'; 16:5 — "Rightsoos art thoa .... thou Holy Ont, 
biOMM thou didst thns Judge"; 19:2— "true and righteoos an his Jodgaeati; ftr ks hath Jidgtd the ffnil kar> 



654 ASTHBOPOLOGT, OR THE DOCTRnTB OP MAX. 

IfL** So untrue is the saving of Sir IVifmai More's Utopia : *^ 71i&€iid of all p wntelnnB Pt 
is the dcetnictk*n of Tioe, and the saTinjr of mea.** Luther :** God has two roda: one oC 
mercy aod goodness ;aootlx3' of anger and fury."* fliaiitiwmfiitistiiefdnper; penalty 
the latter. 

If the reform-theory of penalty is eorrect, then to imnish crime, without aaklnr 
ahoat reformatioo, maKc« the state the trM iagiu gnr ; its punishments should be pio- 
portioned,not to the greatness of the crime, hut to the sinner's state ; the death-penalty 
should be abolished, upon the ground that it wiU prectnde all hope of reformadon. 
Bat the same theory would abolish any final Judgment, or eternal ponlshment ; for, 
whenthesoul becomes so wicked that there is no more hope of reform, there is no 
longer any Justice in punishing it^ The greater the sin, the less the punishment; and 
Satan, the greatest sinner, should have no punishment at aD. 

Modem denunciations of capital punishment are often based upon wrong concep- 
tions of the object of penalty. Opposition to the doctrine of future punishment would 
give way, if the opposers realised what i>enaltT is ordained to sectire. Harris, God the 
Creator, S : 447, 451 — ** Punishment is not primarily reformatory ; it educates oonsdence 
and vtDdicates the authority of law.** R. W. Dale : ** It is not necessary to prove that 
hanging is beneficial to the person hanged. The theory that society has no right to 
send a man to JaU, to feed him on bread and water, to make him pick hemp or work a 
treadmill, except to reform him, is utterly rotten. He must deserve to be punished, cnr 
else the law has no right to punish him.** A House of Befuge or a State Industrial 
School is primarily a penal institution, for it deprives persons of their liberty and com- 
pels them against their will to labor. This loss and deprivation on their part cannot be 
Justified except upon the ground that it is the desert of their wrong doing. Whatever 
gracious and philanthropic influences may accompany this confinement and compul- 
sion, they cannot of themselves explain the penal element in the institution. If they 
could, a habeas corpus decree could be sought, and obtained, from any competent 
court. 

God's treatment of men in this world also combines the elements of penally and of 
chastisement. Suffering is first of all deser^^ed, and t his ju^ifics its infliction. But it is 
at the beginning accompanied with all manner of alleviating influences which tend to 
draw men back to God. As these gracious influences are resisted, the punitive dement 
becomes preponderating, and penalty reflei^ts Gtid's holiness rather than his lo>*e. 
Moberly, Atonement and Personality, 1-25— *' Pain is not the immediate object of 
punishment. It must be a means to an end, a moral end, namely, penitence. But where 
the depraved man becomes a human tiger, there punishment must reach its culmi- 
nation. There is a punishment which is not restorative. Aooording to the spirit in 
which punishment is received, it may be internal or external. All punishment begins 
as discipline It tends to repentance. Its triumph would be the triumph within. It 
becomes retributive only as the sinner refuses to repent. Punishment is only the 
development of sin. The ideal penitent condemns himself, identifies himself with 
righteousness by accepting penalty. In proportion as penalty fails in its purpose to 
produce penitence, it acquires more and more a retributive character, whose climax is 
not Calvary but HelL" 

Alexander, Moral Order and Progress, 327-333 (quoted in Ritchie, Darwin, and Hegel* 
67 ) — '* Punishment has three characters : It is retributive, in so far as it falls under 
the general law that resistance to the dominant type recoils on the guilty or resistant 
creature ; it is preventive, in so far as, being a statutory enactment, it aims at securing 
the maintenance of the law irrespective of the individual's character. But this latter 
characteristic is sccomlary, and the former is comprehended in the third idea, that of 
reformation, which is the superior form in which retribution appears when the type is 
a mental ideal and is affected by conscious persons." Hyslop on Freedom, Responsi- 
bility, and Punishment, In Mind, April, 18W : 167-li*9— " In the Elmira Reformatoiy, out 
of 2295 persons paroled between 1876 and 1S99, 1907 or 83 per cent, represent a probably 
complete reformat ion. Determinists say that this class of persons cannot do otherwise. 
S^imething is wrong with their theory. We conclude that 1. Causal responsibility 
Jastifies preventive punishment; S. Potential moral responsibility Justifies corrective 
punishment; 3. Actual moral responsibility Justifies retributive punishment." Here 
we wiA only to point out the incorrect use of the word ** punishment," which belongs 
only to the last cla5«. In the two former cases the word ** chastisement " should have 
been imad. See Julius Miillcr, Lehre von dcr SUnde, 1 :334 ; Thornton, Old Fashioned 
Ethics, 70-73; Domer, GUtubenalehre, 2:238, 238 (Syst. Doct,, 8:134> 135) ; Bobertson't 




OOKSEQUBKTCBS OF SIK TO ADAH's POSTEBITT. 655 

Sermons, 4tb Series, no. 18 ( Harper's ed., 752 ) ; see also this CompendlunL, references 
on Holiness, A. ( d ), page 273. 

(6) Penalty is not essentiallj deterrent and preventive. — By this we 
mean that its primary design is not to protect society, by deterring men 
from the commission of like offences. We grant that this end is often 
secured in connection with punishment, both in family and civil govern- 
ment and nnder the government of God. Bat we claim that this is a 
merely incidental result, which God's wisdom and goodness have connected 
with the infliction of penalty, — it cannot be the reason and ground for 
penalty itself. Some of the objections to the preceding theory apply also 
to this. But in addition to what has been said, we urge : 

Penalty cannot be primarily designed to secure social and governmental 
safety, for the reason that it is never right to punish the individual simply 
for the good of society. No punishment, moreover, will or can do good to 
others that is not just and right in itself. Punishment does good, only 
when the person punished deserves punishment ; and that desert of pun- 
ishment, and not the good effects that will follow it, must be the ground 
and reason why it is inflicted. The contrary theory would imply that the 
criminal might go free but for the effect of his punishment on others, and 
that man might rightly commit crime if only he were willing to bear the 
penalty. 

Kant, Praktische Vemunft, 151 (ed. Rosenkranz) — **Tlie notion of ill-desert and 
punishablencss is necessarily implied in the idea of voluntary transffreasion ; and the 
idea of punishment excludes that of happiness in all its forms. For though he who 
inflicts punishment may, it is true, also have a benevolent purpose to produce by the 
punishment some f?ood effect upon the criminal, yet the punishment must be Justified 
first of all as pure and simple requital and retribution. .... In every punishment as 
such, Justice is the very first thing and constitutes the essence of it. A benevolent 
purpose, it is true, may be conjoined with punishment; but the criminal cannot claim 
this as his due, and he has no right to reckon on it." These utterances of Elant apply 
to the deterrent theory as well as to the reformatory theory of penalty. The element 
of desert or retribution is the basis of the other elements in punishment. See James 
Seth, Ethical Principles, 333-338 ; Shedd, Dogm. Theology, 2 : 717 ; Hodge, Essays, 183. 

A certain English Judge, in sentencing a criminal, said that he punished him, not for 
stealing sheep, but that bheep might not be stolon. But it is the greatest injustice to 
punish a man for the mere sake of example. Society cannot be benefited by such 
injustice. The theory can give no reason why one should be punished rather than 
another, nor why a second offence should be punished more heavily than the first. On 
this theory, moreover, if there were but one creature in the universe, and none existed 
beside himself to be affected by his suffering, he could not Justly be punished, however 
great might be his sin. The only principle that can explain punishment is the princi- 
ple of desert. See Martineau, l^^pes of Ethical Theory, 2 : 348. 

** Crime is most prevented by the conviction that crime deserves punishment ; the 
greatest deterrent agency is conscience." So in the government of Qod ** there is no 
hint that future punishment works good to the lost or to the universe. The integrity 
of the redeemed is not to be maintained by subjecting the lost to a punishment they do 
not deserve. The wrong merits punishment, and God is bound to punish it, whether 
good comes of it or not. Sin is intrinsically ill-deserving. Impurity must be banished 
from God. God must vindicate himself, or cease to be holy " (see art. on the Philoso- 
phy of Punishment, by F. L. Patton, in Brit, and For. Evang. Kev., Jan. 1878 : 120-139). 

Bow ne, Principles of Ethics, 186, 274 — Those who maintain punishment to be essen- 
tially deterrent and preventive ^^ ignore the metaphysics of responsibility and treat the 
problem * positively and objectively * on the basis of physiology, sociology, etc., and in 
the interests of public safety. The question of guilt or innocence is as irrelevant as the 
question concerning the guilt or innocence of wasps and hornets. An ancient holder 
of this view set forth the opinion that "it vu axpediat that ou maa ihoold di« finr the paopU" 



45^ AJ1B»>J-C*1/>&T, OX TH£ XpCKTEISTZ OF 




}f^.Mt*: U/ mtfj^nok ^^Jsaanm m the fxiadbB&eBfld sraibcaEr of God. 
Uf/Si 'yf Uifet bfAjz^Mk m 'MeAb^jtJzjf tbt excrtiM of k/re, rsautt tbt ["'■iiM'iiii of 
ai'.r ^'^^ <A« H. hnAS*jr^ Ajp: Ol ¥^^L, 3tt-Sf— -* Wtei it pKsml iifH ii i g dfigned to 
Wf00as\pi^Ai ? U it u> BUAif«si tbi& i«rx2aHi c< God ? li it to ezTres tbe ■ucticr oftbe 
mf/ruh ife V > I« it a!&^-.j a ida-'^nl orjuw^oecKie ? Doec !t naazufcR tJbe dfriae ftofaer- 
ln'y^ > G'^ 'i/.^3( &M ir-fl^ct ^^iUMiXj K^piT u> aECafy- h:7nw4f cr to manifeec hit holi- 
n^^ft, imj zziorib tftuifj am wtJujr iMth^tr ixJbtXB taStnag 00 Ui chlid 10 show Ui 
wnab »oJ/iCt tb^ wrfpsjje'^^zr 'n Uj iD*£if«R hte own gwwinrwfc Tbe ideA of ponidft- 
flMrrjt m <dWKii* Juir tATtAnc ukI foni^ to ftU that to ksovn of the Deixr. Fenalty 
U«aLt U u*A r*^'*rz:jkXf*ry or pT*j/u»fLix^ 2§ bttrtjftrfein. In the hunc!. punMimefit It al««js 
diA^.if/iJM;. lu ohi^t V. the weifAre of the child sod tbe funilr. Piralthmmt — an 
trxynMii*/u *d vmh or eozzuty, with no rcnnedial purpcse beyood. it a idle of baitar- 
kifj. It 'Arri^ vith it tbo oont^At of r«tk««an'.e. It as tbe expreasoa of anser, of paa- 
ftj//ri< or aa U^x of 'y^Jd Justice. Penal suffenni; li ludoobtedlj the dSrine hoUneai 
exf/r<^K!;jjjf it* bAtn^i rjf «jd. Bat. If it itope with gucfa expression, it is not hoHnw, but 
m-t1UUtt*:m, li on tbfr ot^i'rr faaiid that expicasaoo of bolineai is usEsd or pennltted In 
itrUrr tiwt tlj<; uxut^r tuny \m: made to bate bis sin, then it is no more pnnishmeot, bat 
iAMifti>0fni*7ttU *fu any oth'rr hypotheus. penal suffering has no Jnstillcation exeept 
tilt: urtuinwy wiil tgf Uih AiiniKbty, and such a hypothesis is an impeachment both of 
biM jfi«tu>? a/i<J blH lov4;,** This view seems to us to ignore the neoeaaary reactiao of 
dJ vifi<; lyflint:m aiptinut Hin ; to make hr^Iiness a mere form of lore ; a means to an end 
and tlmt *m6 utiiitarian ; and so to deny to hotfnfs any independent, or even real. 
ex)itf>'ri':«r in tin; divine nature. 

Thf wr«th of fUf6 \n calm and jiidlcfal, devoid of all passion or caprice, bat It Is 
tb<? <'Xpr<'K»!f<m of "tfrnal and uDchaDf(<'abl«; righteousness. It Is vindicative bat 
not vlndff'tivir. Without it there could be no government, and God would not be 
(hftf. F. W. UolMTtHon : ** lKX;s not tbe element of vengeance exist In all punish- 
ment, and d'xfM not the fw'liog exist, not as a sinful, but as an essential, part of 
biirnan natun*? If so, there muKt lie wrath in God.** Lord Bacon : ** Revenge Is a 
wild Hitri of juHtice.** Stephen : " Criminal law provides legitimate satisfaction of 
Ihe pflHMionM of r<r\'enKe." Isomer, Olaubenslebre, 1: 287. Per contra, see Bib. Sac, 
Apr. IWi : 2HG-3(tt; II. H. Hmlth, System of Theology. 46, 47; Cbitty's ed. of Black- 
stone's crommentarles. 4:7; Wharton, Criminal Law. voL 1, bk. 1, chap. 1. 

2. 77te actual penalty of sin, 

Tlio one word in Bcriiitnre which designates the total penalty of sin i8 
'^df^th." Death, however, Ib twofold : 

A« Iliynical death, — or the separation of the sonl from the body, 
including all thoHo temi)oral evils and sufferings which result from dis- 
turlifiiico of the original harmouy between body and soul, and which are 
the working of death in ns. That physical deaih. is a part of the penalty 
of Kin, apiHiars : 

( a ) From Hcripture. 

TIiIh iH thn most obvious import of the threatening in Qen. 2 : 17 — " thon 
Nhiilt Hiiroly die " ; c/. 8 : 19—" unto dust shalt thou return." Allusions to 
UiIh throat in the O. T. oonflrm this interpretation : Num. 16 : 29—*' visited 




CONSEQUENCES OF SIN TO ADAM'S POSTERITT. 667 

after the visitation of all meu," where 1p3 = judicial visitation, or ponish- 
ment ; 27 : 3 ( lxx. — oi' dfiapriav avT<w ). The prayer of Moses in Ps. 90 : 
7-9, 11, and the prayer of Hezekiah in Is. 38 : 17, 18, recognize plainly the 
•penal nature of death. The same doctrine is taught in the N. T., as for 
example, John 8 : 44 ; Rom. 5 : 12, 14, 16, 17, where the judicial phrase- 
ology is to be noted ( c/. 1 : 32); see 6 : 23 also. In 1 Pet 4 : 6, physical 
death is spoken of as God's judgment against sin. In 1 Cor. 16 : 21, 22, 
the bodily resurrection of all believers, in Christ, is contrasted with the 
bodily death of all men, in Adam, Rom. 4 : 24, 26 ; 6 : 9, 10 ; 8 : 3, 10, 
11 ; Gal. 3 : 13, show that Christ submitted to physical death as the pen- 
alty of sin, and by his resurrection from the grave gave proof that the 
penalty of sin was exhausted and that humanity in him was justified. "As 
the resurrection of the body is a part of the redemption, so the death of 
the body is a part of the penalty." 

Pb. 90:7,9— "we meoniumed in tUneMgOT .... til oar daTianpuMdavayintky vnth"; Ii.38:17, 18 
~- "thon hast in lore to my tool daliTand it from tho pit . . . . thoa hast east all mj tins behind thj baek. For 
Sheol cannot pnise thee"; John8:i4— "He[Satan] was a mnrdarer from the beginning"; 11 : 33— Jesus 
" groaned in the spirit " = was moved with indi^rnatlon at what sin had wroufirht ; Rom. 5 : 12; 14, 
16, 17 — "death throogh sin ... . death passed nnto all men, for that all sinned .... death reigned .... aren onr 
them that bad not sinned after the likeness of idam's transgression .... the Jndgment came of one [ trespass ]iiBto 
eondemnation .... bj the trespass of the one, daaUi reigned through the one " ; c/. the legal phraseolofiry in 
1 : 32— " who. knowing the ordiDanoe of God, that they that praetise snoh things are worthy of death." Rom. 6 : 23— 
"the wages of sin is death " — death is siu's Just due. 1 Pet. 4 : 6 — "that thej might b«Jadged indeed aeoord- 
ing to men in the flesh " » that they might suffer physical death, which to men in general is 
the penalty of Rin. 1 Cor. 15: 21, 22— "as in idam all di^ so also in Christ shall all be made alive"; Rom.4:24, 
25 — " raised Jesus onr Lord from the dead, who was deliTsred op for oar treqMsses, and was raised for onr Justi- 
fication"; 6 : 9, 10 — "Christ being nusad from the dead diethno more; death no more hath dominion oTor him. Tw 
the death that he died, he died unto sin onoe : butthelilb that heliTsth, he liveth untoGod " ; 8: 3^ 10, 11— ** God, send- 
ing his own Son in the likeness of sinftil flesh nd for sin, eondamned sin in Uie flesh .... the bodj is dead beeaoao of 
sin " ( -a a cor])se, on account of sin — Meyer ; so Julius MUller, Doct. Sin, 2 : 291 )...." he 
that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall give li& also to your mortal bodies"; QaL 3: 13 — "Christ redeemed us 
from the eurse of the law, hsTing become a eurse for us; for it is written, Ouraed is arery one that hangeth on a tree.'* 

On the relation between death and sin. see Griffith-Jones, Ascent through Christ, 
189-185 — " They are not antagonistic, but complementary to eaoh other- the one spirit- 
ual and the other biological. The natural fact is fitted to a moral use.*' Savage, Life 
after Death, 33— ** Men did not at first believe in natural death. If a man died, it was 
because some one had killed him. No ethical reason was desired or needed. At last 
however they sought some moral explanation, and came to look upon death as a pun- 
ishment for human sin." If this has been the course of human evolution, we should 
conclude that the later belief represents the truth rather than the earlier. Scripture 
certainly affirms the doctrine that death itself, and not the mere acompaniments of 
death, is the consequence and penalty of sin. For this reason we cannot aooept the 
very attractive and plausible theory which we have now to mention : 

Newman Smyth, Place of Death in Evolution, holds that as the bow In the cloud was 
appointed for a moral use, so death, which before had been simply the natural law of 
the creation, was on occasion of man's sin appointed for a moral use. It is this (uquired 
moral character of death with which Biblical Genesis has to do. Death becomes a curse, 
by being a fear and a torment. Animals have not this fear. But in man death stirs up 
oonscienco. Redemption takes away the fear, and death drops back into its natural 
aspect, or even becomes a gateway to life. Death is a curse to no animal but man. 
The retributive element in death is the effect of sin. When man has become per- 
fected, death will cefise to be of use, and will, as the last enemy, be destroyed. Death 
here is Nature's method of securing always fresh, young, thrifty life, and the greatest 
possible exuberance and Joy of it. It is God's way of securing the gi^eatest possible 
number and variety of immortal beingrs. There are many schoolrooms for eternity 
in God's universe, and a ceaseless succession of scholars through them. There are 
many folds, but one flook. The reaper Death keeps making room. Four or five gen- 
erations are as many as we can individually love, and get moral stimulus from* 

42 



658 A^rTHROPOljOGT, OR THE DOCTRHn OF HAS. 



MethoflebUu too man j would hoH back the utw genentiooa. Bayphcic tuj% that cfr- 
liiXAtion m^flfl flm to form a cak*: of custom, ami ieo ^n>lif to break it upL Death, lay* 
Xartineau, Study, 1 : X2-9:t, i§ tbe pn^rision for taking u« abroad, before ve haw 
staj€;d too lon^r at b^ime to I'^*^ our rr.^-eptjvxtr. In^ih is the liberator of soula. 
df-ath of iiir-fir-sr?: ve ir'rn*rraTi- >:i- Kf.ves van-ry to brAvoa. Dc-ath perfects lore; 
it to itiw-if. ur. lie's u life cf^a.d not. Aa for ChrlA, so for ua. It is e ji pedie ni 
sbo:jId sm away. 

Whii<: we wf.icomethis rcascAinir a:: sLowing- how God has overruled evil for good, 
we r«vBrr] th.- exp^natlon as uri^-riptural and ur^^tiifactory. for the rauoo that tt 
takes no account of the ethics of natural law. Thr' law of leuth is sn expreixioQOf the 
natu re of (}fpl, and specially of his holy wrath against sin. <jtber mtihods of propacrat- 
injT the race and reinforcing its life could have b».-en adi>pt«.-d than that which involves 
pain and suff erinir and death. These do nr^t ejtist in the future life, — they would not 
exist here, if it were not for the fact of sin. Dr. Smyth shows how the e^-fl of death 
has been overruled, — he has not shown the reason for the original existence of the eviL 
The .Scriptures explain this as the pr^nalty and stigma which God has attached to sin: 
Psihi M : 7, 8 makes this plain : "fvn an oooscaiAis ikis* tofw. 1^ is tky vnA an w tm^hi. Am 
kMtMto8riaifa:*i«btf!EnaM.OcrMa«tsaais:ki jfit tftkje8Ba*.4BaaM.'' The whole psalm has for 
its theme: Deathasthe wa^t^of sin. And this is the teaching of Panl, in liB.S: 12 — 
"tknofk OM Ma da muni in* tht v«!i. aai. ditfk tkraagk as.** 

(h) From reajBon. 

The nnivcrsal preralenoe of gnfTering and death among rational creatnTes 
cannot lie reconciled with the divine jnstice, except upon the supposition 
tliat it iii a judicial infliction on account of a common sinfulness of nature 
belonging even to those who liave not reached moral oonsciousnesSb 

The objection that death existed in the animal creation before the Fall 
may Ix) answered by saying that, but for the fact of man's sin, it would not 
have existecL We may believe that God arranged even the geologio his- 
tory to correspond with the fores<H?n fact of human apostasy ( cf. Bom. 8 : 
20-23 — where the creation is said to have been made subject to vanity by 
reason of man's sin ). 

On lM.8:2(>-23--"tkeamtionvBSial4MledteTuitj. Brt of its flVBvill'*— see Meyer's Gom., and 
Bap. Quar., 1 : 143 ; also Gen. 3 : 17-19 — "esned is U« grDoad for thy akn'* See also note on the 
Belation of Creation to the Holiness and Benevolence of God, and references, pages 
40S, 408. As the vertebral structure of the first fish was an **• anticipatlve consequence *' 
of man, so the suffering and death of fish pursued and devoured by other fish were an 
** antlcifiative consequence '* of man*s foreseen war with God and with himself. 

The translation of Enoch and EHjah, and of the saints that remain at 
Christ's second coming, seems intended to teach us that death is not a 
necessary law of organized being, and to show what would have happened 
to Adam if he had been obedient He was created a ''natural," ** earthly 
body, but might have attained a higher being, the ** spiritual," ''heavenly 
body, without the intervention of death. Sin, however, has turned the 
normal condition of things into the rare exception ( cf, 1 Cor. 15 : 42-^). 
Since Christ endured death as the x)enalty of sin, death to the Christian 
becomes the gateway through which he enters into fuU communion with his 
Lord ( see references below ). 

Through physical death all Christians will pass, except those few who like Bnooh and 
Rlijah were translated, and those many who shall be alive at Christ's second coming. 
Knooh and El ijah were i)oa8ible types of those surviving saints. On i Oor. 15 : Si ~ ** We ihall 
not all tlMp. bat va ahall all ba ehangad," see Edward Irving, Works, 6 : 18S. The apoorsrphal 
AsHUtiiption of Moses, verse 0, tells us that Joshua, being carried in vision to the spot 
at the nioincnt of Moses* doceape, beheld a double Moses, one dropped into the grave as 
boloDging to the oarth« the other niiogling with the angels. The belief in Moses 







CONSEQUEKCES OF SIK TO ADAM's POSTERITY. 659 

immortality was not conditioned upon any resuscitation of the earthly corpse ; see 
Martineau, Seat of Authority, 964. When Paui was cau^rht up to the third heaven, it 
may have been a temporary traoslation of the disembodied spirit. Set free for a brief 
space Irom the prison house wliich confined it, it may have passed within the veil and 
have seen and heard what mortal tongue could not describe ; see Luckock, Intermediate 
State. 4. So Lazarus probably could not tell what he saw : ** He told it not ; or some- 
thing: sealed The lips of that E\'angeli8t " ; see Tennyson, In Memoriam, xxxi. 

Niooll, Life of Christ : ** We have every one of us to face the last enemy, death. Ever 
since the world began, all who have entered it sooner or later have had this struggle, 
and the battle has always ended in one way. Two indeed escaped, but they did not 
escape by meeting and masterin^r their foe ; they escaped by being taken away from 
the battle." But this physical death, for the Christian, has been turned by Christ into 
a blessing. A pardoned prisoner may be still kept In prison, as the best possible benefit 
to an exhausted body ; so the external fact of physical death may remain, although it 
has ceased to lie penalty. Macaulay : " The aged prisoner's chains arc needed to support 
him ; the darkness that has weakened his sight is necessary to preserve it." So spiritual 
death is not wholly removed from the Christian ; a part of it, namely, depravity, still 
remains ; yet it has ceased to bo punishment,— it is only chastisement. When the fin^rer 
unties the ligature that bound it, the body which previously had only chastised begins 
to cure the trouble. There is still pain, but the pain is no longer punitive, -- it is now 
remedial. In the midst of the whipping, when the boy repents, his punishment is 
changed to chastisement. 

John 14 : 3 — " ind if I go and praptn a plaoe for yoa, I oema again, and vill noeiTe 70a onto myaslf ; tiiat whan I 
am, then ye maj be alw " ; 1 Cor. 15 : 54-57 — " Deatii is svallowad up in tietor j .... d«ath, vhere is \kj sting? 
The sting ofdaath is sin; and tiie powofsin is ths law" — i. e., the law's condemnation, its penal 
infliction ; 2 Cor. 5 : 1-9 — " For va knov that if ths earthly hooM of our tabemade be disBolved ve have a building 
Crom God .... we are of good eonraga, I say, and are willing rather to b« absent from the body, and to be at home 
with the Lori"; PhlL 1 : 21, 23 — " to die is gain .... hating the desire to depart aod be with Christ ; for itisrery 
ikr better." In Christ and his bearing the penalty of sin, the Christian has broken through 
the circle of natural race-connection, and is saved from corporate evil so far as it is 
punishment. The Christian may be chastised, but he is never punished : Kom. 8:1 — "There 
ii there&re now no oondemnation to them tiiat are in Christ Jesns." At the house of Jairus Jesus said : 
** Why make ye a tomolt, and weep ? " and having reproved the doleful clamorists, " he pat them all 
finrth " ( Hark 5 : 39, 40 ). The wakes and requiems and masses and vigils of the churches of 
Rome and of Russia are all heathen relics, entirely foreign to Christianity. 

Palmer, Theological Definition, 67— "Death feared and fought a^nst is terrible; 
but a welcome to death is the death of death and the way to life." The idea that pun- 
ishment yet remains for the Christian is " the bridge to the papal doctrine of purgato- 
rial fires." Browning's words, in The Ring and the Book, 2 : 60— " In His fa,oe is light, 
but in his shadow healing too," are applicable to God's fatherly chastenings, but not 
to his penal retributions. On lets 7: 80 •~" he fell asleep "^Amot remarks: ** When death 
becomes the property of the believer, it receives a new name, and is called sleep." 
Another has said : ** Christ did not send, but came himself to save ; The ransom-prioe 
he did not lend, but gave ; Christ died, the shepherd for the sheep ; We only /oQ adeep" 
Per contra^ see Kreibig, Verstthnungslehre, 875, and Hengstenberg, Ev. K.-Z., 1864 : 1066 
— ** All suffering is punishment." 

B. Spiritual death, — or the separation of the soul from God, indnding 
all that pain of conscienoe, loss of peace, and sorrow of spirit, which resnlt 
from disturbance of the normal relation between the soul and God. 

(a) Although physical death is a x^art of the penalty of sin, it is by no 
means the chief part The term ' death ' is frequently used in Scripture 
in a moral and spiritual sense, as denoting the absence of that which con- 
stitutes the true life of the soul, namely, the presence and favor of GKkL 

Mat. 8 : 22 — " Follow me ; sad leare the [spiritually] dead to buy their own [physically] dead " ; Lake 15 : 
82 — "thisthj brother was dead, sad is alire again"; John5:24— "EethatheaNthmy woord, and belienth him thai 
sent me, hath eternal lift, aod otoneth not into judgment^ bnt hath pasMdont of death into lift"; 8:51— "If a nan keep 
mj word, he shall never see death"; Rob. 8 : 13 — "if je liye after the flesh, ye mnst die; bat if bj the Spirit ye pat to 
death the deeds of the body, 70 shall Uto"; IpL 2 il — " when je were dead thronghyflnr trBapMMHMnidtiy ". ^.U — 

iwa]u,thoa that ilwp«it» and ariM from thtdiid"; inin.6:6~'*ihathatgifithhmilf taplittanitdsadvUlt 



«i 



ceo ANTHROPOLOGY, OR THE DOCTRINB OF IIAK. 

tar lirrtk": Juhi5:2D — "be who MBTolfth aiiBaer from tteflrnr ofbis vayskillMTfiMiIfrHitelk**;! MB 
:i : U — "Bt liu ior«k nu ah.de'Ji m iMk ' ; Rcr 3:1 — " uoq bul a Biae this Uob Ut«i. u4 tkMait tel* 

( 6 ) It cannot be ildiibtiMl that the pemilty dciK»iuioed in the garden and 
fallen npon the race is iirimarily and uiaiulj that death of the aonl which 
canasta in its Beparation fittm GihL In this sense only, death was folly 
visiied ajx^n Adam in the day on which he ate the forbidden fmit (Gen. 2 : 
17 ). In this sense only, dc^ith is escaixnl by the Christian ( John 11 : 26 )• 
For this reason, in the itarallel betwtvn Adnm and Christ (Bom. 5 : 12-21), 
Uie aix>stle pasHes from the thought of mere physical death in the early 
part of the jjassage to that cf both physical and spiritual death at its close 
( verse 21 — "as sin reigned in deatli, even so might grace reign through 
righteousn€*8s unto eternal life thnm^h JeHus Christ our Lord" — where 
"eternal life" is more tliau endless physical existence, and "death "is 
more than death of tlic lxi<ly ). 

G&2:17— ''ktktdATthittboaealeitthflnQrtkoBikiJtnnlydit**; JokBll:»— "vkMmrli^ 

tBMfc^laervdu "; &om.5.14, 18. 21— "jutifieisuAofUfe eunAllift"; vontnst these with *'tetk 

Ri^Md .... Kin reigMd in datth." 

( c) Eternal death may be regarded as the culmination and oompletion of 
spiritual death, and as csscutially consisting in tlie correspondence of the 
outward condition with the inward state of the evil soul ( Acts 1 : 25 ). It 
w<iuld seem to be inaugurated by some peculiar rei)ellent energy of the 
divine holiness (Mat. 25 : 41 ; 2 Thesa. 1:9), and to involve positive retri- 
bution visited by a iiersonul CK)d ui>ou both the body and the sonl of the 
evil-doer (Mat 10 :28 ; Heb. 10 : 31 ; Rev. 14 : 11 ). 

AcUl:25 — **JadisfeUava7.t!uitheniigktgotohisovnplafle"; 1Ut.25:41«**Diputft<NiB%p«lMi, llto 
Ike denial fin vluch is prepared fiar tbederil and hii angeli"; 2 noH.l:9— "wko ihall nir pniAan^ fW 
•tanul dKitnction from the faee of the Lord and firom the glory of his might"; Kat 10:28-~*'farUavheisahtot» 
dMtroT both soai and body in heU"; HeK 10:31 — "It ii a fearfU thing tefaUiatothehudiarthaUTii« 8td**; 
R«T. 14 : 11 — " the smoke of thdr torment goelh up for ever and OTer." 

Kurtz, Ik'Iiffioiialchn*, G7 — *' So lonfr a.« Go<1 is holy, ho must maintain the order of 
the wcirid, and where this is destroyed, restore it. Thi8 however can happen in no other 
wuy than this : the injury by which the sinner luis destroyini the order of the world flalla 
biick upon himself,— and this is penalty. Sin is the negation of the law. Penalty ia the 
nefratlon of that nefration, that is, thi > re^ahlishnient of the law. Sin is a throat of t he 
sinner OKuinst the law. Penalty is the adverse thrust of the clastic beoauae livlnir law, 
which encounters the sinner." 

Plato, (jorgias, 47L> e ; GOi) d ; 511 A : 515 b— " Impunity Is a more dreadful curae tban 
any punishment, and nothing so good can lM.>falI the criminal as his retribution, the 
failure of which would make a double disorder in the universe. The oifcnder himaelf 
may spend his arts in deviet.>8 of escu|)c and think hinuK.'lf happ}' if he is not found out. 
Hut all tills plotting Is but part of the delusion of his sin ; and when ho comes to blmaelf 
and sees his transgression as it really is, he will yield himself up the prisoner of eternal 
Justice tmd know that it is good for him to be aflUcted, and so for the first time to be 
set at one with truth." 

On the g<'neral HiibJfK^ of tiic penalty of sin, see Julius Mtlller, I>oct. Sin, 1 :845 sq. ; 
2::m~tiii:; Bninl; Klohim Keveakid, 2»;^2?.); liushnell. Nature and the Supematurml* 
1U4-2H(: Krabl)e, Iii'hre von der SUnde und vom Tode; Wcissc, In Studicn undKrltlken, 
1H.'» : .n ; 8. U. Mason, Truth Unfolded, ;)GB-;384; UarUott, in New Englander, Oou 1871 : 
677, 671. 



SECTION VII. — ^THE SALVATION OF INFANTS. 

The views which have been preserted with regard to inborn depravi1|y 
and the reaction of divine holincHS against it suggest the question whether 




THE SALVATION OP INFANTS. 661 

infants dying before arriving at moral consciousness are saved, and if so, 
in what way. To this question we reply as follows : 

( a ) Infants are in a state of sin, need to be regenerated, and can be 
saved only through Christ. 

Jobl4:4— ''WhoonbrmgaoleuitlusgoatofanaiMleui? not one"; Pl 51: 5— "Behold, I vu brought forth in 
iniqoitj; ind in sin did mj mothor oonoeiTO me " ; John3:6 — "That whiehiibomof thefleehisfleoh"; Rom. 5: 14 
— " NeTertheleis death reigned from idam ontil Voiea, eren orer thorn that had not dnned after the likcnees of idam's 
tranagrenion " ; Iph. 2 : 3 — "bj natnre ehildren of vrath" ; 1 Cor. 7 : 14 — "else were joor ehildren unclean" — 
clearly intimato tho naturally impure state of infants ; and Mat 19 : 14 —"Safer the little children.* 
and forbid them not, to eome unto me" —is not only consistent wit h this doctrine, but stronf^ly 
confirms it ; for the meaningr is : " forbid them not to oome onto me " — whom they need as a 
Savior. ** Coming to Christ *' is always the coming of a sinner, to him who is tho sacrifice 
for sin; c/. Mat 11:28 — "Ocme unto me^ all ye that labor." 

( 6 ) Yet as compared with those who have personally transgressed, they 
are recognized as possessed of a relative innocence, and of a submissiveness 
and trustfulness, which may serve to illustrate the graces of Christian char- 
acter. 

Dent 1 : 39 — "tout little ones .... and yoor children, that this day haro no knowledge of good or eril" ; 
Jonah 4: 11 — " sizseore thousand penoni that cannot diaeem between their right hand and their left hand" ; Kom. 9: 
11 — "ISsr the children being not yet bom, neither hanng done anything good or bad " ; Mat 18 : 3, 4 — "Izeept ye 
torn, and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaTen. Whoaoerer therefore shall 
hnmble himself as this little chili the same is the greatest in the kingdom of heaTen. " See Julius MUller, Doct. 
Sin, 2 : 366. Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, 2: 50— ** Unpretentious receptivity, .... not 
the reception of tho kingdom of God at a childlike aye, but in a childlike character . . . 
. . Is the condition of entering; .... not blamelossness, but receptivity itself, on the 
part of those who do not regard themselves as too good or too bad for the offered gift, 
but receive it with hearty desire. Children have this unpretentious receptivity for 
the kingdom of God which Is characteristic of them generally, since they have not yet 
other possessions on which they pride themselves." 

( e ) For this reason, they are the objects of special divine compassion 
and care, and through the grace of Christ are certain of salvation. 

Mat 18 : 5, 6, 10, 14 — " whoso shall receive one nich little child in mj name reoeireth me : bat whoto shall canae one 
of theae little ones that beliere on me to stnmbK it is jmAtable for him tiiat a great millstone should be hanged about 
his neek, and that he should be sank in tiie depth of the sea. .... See that ye demise not one of these little ones: finr I 
say unto yoa, that in heaven their angels do always behold the faoe of my Father who is in heaven. .... Iven so it ii 
not the will of yoor Father who is in heaTen, that one of these little onea should perish " ; 19 : 14 — " Suffer the little 
children, and forbid them not to oome unto me : for to such belongeth the kingdom of heaven " ~- not God's king- 
dom of nature, but his kingdom of grace, the kingdom of saved sinners. ^^Such*' 
means, not children as children, but childlike believers. Meyer, on Mat 19 : 14, refers the 
passage to spiritual infants only : ** Not little children,*' ho says, **but men of a child- 
like disposition.'* Geikie : ** Let the little children come unto me, and do not forbid 
them, for the kingdom of heaven is given only to such as have a childlike spirit and 
nature like theirs.** The Savior*s words do not intimate that little children are either 
( 1 ) sinless creatures, or ( 2) subjects for baptism ; but only that their ( 1 ) humble teach- 
ableness, (2) intense eagerness, and (3) artless trust, illustrate tho traits necessary for 
admission into tho divine kingdom. On tho passages in Matthew, see Commentaries of 
Bcngel, De Wette, Lange; also Neander, Planting and Training (ed« Robinson), 407. 

Wo therefore substantially agree with Dr. A. C. Kendrick, in his article in the Sunday 

School Times : *' To infants and children, as such, the language cannot apply. It must 

' be taken figuratively, and must refer to those qualities In childhood. Its dependence, 

its trustfulness, its tender affection, its loving obedience, which are typical of the 

essential Christian graces If asked after the logic of our Savior's words— how he 

could assign, as a reason for allowing literal little children to be brought to him, that 
spiritiud little children have a claim to the kingdom of heaven — I reply: the persons 
that thus, as a class, typify the Hubjects of God's spiritual kingdom cannot be in them- 
selves objects of Indifference to him, or be regarded otherwise than with intense inter- 
est The class that in its very nature thus shadows forth the brightest features of 

Christian ozoellence must be subjects of God's special oonoem and care.** 



662 ANTHROPOLOGY, OR THE DOCTRINB OF MAN. 

To these iximarks of Dr. Kendrick we would add, that Jesus* words seem to us to 
in ti mate more than special concern and care. While these words seem intended to 
exclude all Idea that infants are saved by their natural holiness, or without application 
to thcni of the blessings of his atonement, they also seem to us to include infants 
among the number of those who have the right to these blessings ; in other words, 
Christ's concern and care go so far as to choose infants to eternal life, and to make 
them subjects of the kingdom of heaven. Cf, Mat. 18 : 14 — " it is not the vill of jour Fkther vbo is 
in hotTon, that one of thoM little ones ahonld perish" — those whom Christ has received here, he will 
not reject hereafter. Of course this is said to infants, as infants. To those, therefore, 
who die before coming to moral consciousness, Christ^s words assure salvation. Per- 
sonal transgression, however, involves the necessity, before death, of a personal 
repentance and faith, in order to salvation. 

(d) The descriptions of God's merdftd provision as coextensive with 
the rain of the Fall also lead ns to believe that those who die in infancy 
receive salvation through Christ as certainly as they inherit sin from Adam. 

John 3: 16 — "For God so loved the world" — includes infants. RonL5:i4 — "desth reigned from idam until 
loses, eren orer them that had not sinned after tiie likeness of idam's transgression, who is a figure of him that was to 
come " — there is an application to infants of the life in Christ, as there was an application 
to them of the death in Adam ; 19-21 — " For as through the one man's disobedience the manj were made 
sinners, even so through the obedience of the one shall the many be made righteous. And the law came in besides, that 
the trespass might abound ; but where sia abounded, grace did abound more exceedingly : that, as sin reigned in death, 
aren so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal UIb through Jesus Christ our Lord" "- as without 
personal act of theirs infants inherited corruption from Adam, so without personal 
act of theirs salvation is provided for them in Christ. 

Hovey, Bib. Eschatology, 170, 171 — '* Though the sacred writers say nothing In respect 
to the future condition of those who die in infancy, one can scarcely err In deriving 
from this sihmce a favorable conclusion. That no prophet or apostle, that no devout 
father or mother, should have expressed any solicitude as to those who die before they 
are able to discern good from evil is surprising, unless such solicitude was prevented 
by the Spirit of God. There are no instances of prayer for children taken away in 
infancy. The Savior nowhere teaches that they are in danger of being lost. We there- 
fore heartily and confidently believe that they are redc»emed by the blood of Christ 
and sanctified by his Spirit, so that when they enter the unseen world they will be 
found with the saints." David ceased to fast and weep when his child died, for he said : 
"I shall goto him, but he will not return to me" ( 2 Sam. 12: 23). 

( e) The condition of salvation for adults is personal faith. Infants are 
incapable of fulfilling this condition. Since Christ has died for all, we 
have reason to believe that provision is made for their reception of Christ 
in some other way. 

2 Gor. 5 : 15 — " he died for all " ; Hark 16 : 16— ** Ho that beUereth and is baptised shall be saved ; but he that dis- 
belioTeth shall be condemned " ( verses 9-20 are of canonical authority, though probably not writ- 
ten by Mark ). Dr. G. W. Northrop held that, as death to the Christian has ceased to bo 
penalty, so death to all infants is no longer penalty, Christ having atoned for and 
removed the guilt of original sin for all men, infants included. But we reply that 
there is no evidence that there is any guilt taken away except for those who come into 
vital union with Christ. E. G. Robinson, Christian Theology, 166— *' The curse falls 
alike on every one by birth, but may be alleviated or intensified by every one who 
comes to years of responsibility, according as his nature which brings the curse rules, 
or is ruled by, his reason and conscience. So the blessings of salvation are procured 
for all alike, but may be lost or secured according to the attitude of everyone toward 
Christ who alone procures them. To infants, as the curse comes without their election, 
BO in like manner comes its removal." 

(/) At the final judgment, personal conduct is made the test of charac- 
ter. But infarts are incapable of personal transgression. Wo have reason, 
therefore, to believe that they will be among the saved, since this rule of 
decision will not apply to them. 

Mat. 25 : 45, 46 — " Inasmuch as ye did it not unto one of these lesst, je did it not unto me. ind these shall go away 
Uito eternal punishment"; Rom. 2:5, 6 — "the day of wrath and reyelation of the righteous judgment of God; who 



THE SALVATION OF INFANTS. 663 

vill nndtr to craiy man Moordinf to Us vorka.** Norman Fox, Tho TJnf oldingr of Baptist Doo- 
trinc, 34 — '* Not only the Roman Catholics believed in the damnatioa of infants. The 
Lutherans, in the Auffsburir Confession, oondemn the Baptists for afllrminsr that 
children are saved without baptism — * dam nant Anabaptistas qui . . . afBrmant pueros 
sine baptismo salvo^ flcrl *— and the favorite poet of Presbjrterian Scotland, in his Tam 
O^Shantcr, names amon^r objects from hell * Twa span-lansr, woo, unchristened bairns.' 
The Westminster Confession, in declaring that * elect infants dying in infancy' are 
saved, implies that non-clcct infants dying in infancy are lost This was certainly 
taught by some of tho framcrs of that creed.*' 

Yet John Calvin did not believe in the damnation of infftnts, as ho has been charged 
with believing. In the Amsterdam edition of his works, 8:522, wo read: "I do not 
doubt that the infants whom the Lord gathers together from this life are regenerated 
by a secret operation of the Holy Spirit.** In his Institutes, book 4, chap. 16, p. 335, he 
speaks of tho exemption of Infftnts from the grace of salvation **as an idea not free 
from execrable blasphemy." The Presb. and Ref . Rev., Got. 1800 : 634-4S51, quotes Calvin 
as follows : ** I everywhere teach that no one can be Justly condemned and perish 
except on account of actual sin ; and to say that the countless mortals taken from life 
while yet infants are precipitated from their mothers' arms into eternal death Is a 
blasphemy to be universally detested.* * So also John Owen, Works, 8 : 528 — " There are 
two ways by which God saveth infants. First, by interesting them in the covenant, if 
their immediate or remote parents have been believers ; . . . . Secondly, by his grace of 
election, which is most free and not tied to any conditions ; by which I make no doubt 
but God takcth unto him in Christ many whose parents never knew, or were despisers 
of, tho gospeL'* 

(ff) Since there is no evidence that children dying in infancy are regen- 
erated prior to death, either with or without the use of external means, it 
seems most probable that the work of regeneration may be performed by 
the Spirit in connection with the infant soul*s first view of Christ in the 
other world. As the remains of natural depravity in the Christian are 
erailicated, not by death, but at death, through the sight of Christ and 
union with him, so the first moment of oonsoiouBness for the infant may be 
coincident with a view of Christ the Savior which accomplishes the entire 
sanctification of its nature. 

2 Cor. 3 : 18 — " Bat ve all, beholdiog u in a mimr the gloy of tlM Lord, are truufcrnfld into tho auM inago tram 
glorjto glorj, 6T«n aa flrom the Lord the Spirit" ; i John 3:2 — "Wo know that^ if ho shall be manifoited, we shall bo 
like him ; for wo shall see him u he i&" If asked why more is not said upon the subject in 
Scripture, we reply : It is according to the analogy of God*s general method to hide 
things that are not of inunediate practical value. In some past ages, moreover, knowl- 
edge of the fact that all children dying in inftocy are saved might have seemed to make 
infanticide a virtue. 

While we agree with the following writeis as to the salvation of all infants who die 
before the age of conscious and wilful transgression, we dissent from tho seemingly 
Arininian tendency of the explanation which they suggest. H. E. Robins, Harmony 
of Ethics with Theology : **The Judicial declaration of acquittal on the ground of the 
death of Christ which comes upon all men, into the benefits of which they are intro- 
duced by natural birth, is inchoate Justification, and will become perfected Justification 
through the now birth of tho Holy Spirit, imless the working of this divine agent is 
resisted by thi9 personal moral action of those who are lost.** So William Ashmoro, in 
Christian Review, 28 : 245-264. F. O. Dickey : ** Aa infants are members of the race, and 
as they are Justified from the penalty against inherited sin by the mediatorial work of 
Christ, so the race itself is Justified from the same penalty and to the same extent as 
are they, and were the race to die in infancy it would be saved.*' The truth in the 
above utterances seems to us to be that Christ's union with the race secures the 
objective reconciliation of the race to Ood. But subjective and personal reconciliation 
depends upon a moral union with Christ whioh can be accomplished for the inftot only 
by his own appropriation of Christ at death. 

While, in the nature of things and by the express declarations of Script- 
ure, we are precluded from extending this doctrine of regeneration at death 



664 ANTHROPOLOGY, OR THE DOCTRINE OF MAN. 

to any who have oommitted personal sinB, we are nevertheless warranted in 
the conclusion that, certain and great as is the g^t of original sin, no 
human soul is eternally condemned solely for this sin of nature, but that, 
on the other hand, all who have not consciously and wilfully transgressed 
are made partakers of Christ's salvation. 

The advocates of a second probation, on tho other hand, should logically hold that 
infante in the next world are in a state of sin, and that at death they only enter upon a 
period of probation in which thoy may, or may not, accept Christy -^ a doctrine much 
leflB comforting than that propounded above. See Prentias, in Presb. Rev., July, 1883 : 
64S-680— ** Lyman Beccher and Charles Hodge first made current in this country the 
doctrine of the salvation of all who die in infancy. If this doctrine be accepted, then it 
follows : ( 1 ) that these partakers of oriirinal sin must be saved wholly through divine 
grace and power; (3) that in the child unborn there is the promise and potency of 
complete spiritual manhood; (3) that salvation is possible entirely apart from the 
visible church and the means of grace ; (4 ) that to a full half of tho race this life is not 
in any way a period of probation ; (5) that heathen may be saved who have never even 
heard of the gospel ; ( 6 ) that the providence of Ood includes in ite scope both infants 
and heathen.*' 

^* Children exert a redeeming and reclaiming influence upon us, their casual acts and 
words and simple trust recalling our world-hardened and wayward hearts again to the 
ftot of Gfod. Silas Blamcr, tho old weaver of Raveloe, so pathetically and vividly des- 
cribed in George Eliot's novel, was a hard, desolate, godless old miser, but after little 
Bppie strayed into his miserable cottage that memorable winter night, he began again 
to believe. * I think now,* he said at last, * I can trusten God until I die.' An incident 
in a Southern hospital illustrates the power of children to call men to repentance. A 
little girl was to undergo a dangerous operation. When she mounted the table, and 
the doctor was about to etherize her, he said : * Before we can make you well, we must 
put you to sleep.* * Oh then, if you are going to put mo to sleep,' she sweetly said, * 1 
must say my prayers first.* Then, getting down on her knees, and folding her hands, 
she repeated that lovely prayer learned at every true mother's feet : * Now I lay me 
down to sleep, I pray the Lord my soul to keep.* Just for a moment there were moist 
eyes in that group, for deep chords were touched, and the surgeon afterwards said : ' I 
prayed that night for the first time in thirty years.' '* The child that is old enough to 
sin against Gk>d is old enough to trust in Christ as the Savior of sinners. See Van 
Dyke, Christ and Little Children ; Whiteitt and Warfield, Infant Baptism and Infant 
Salvation; Hodge, Syst. Theol., 1:28, 27; Ridgeley, Body of Div., 1:422-425; Calvin, 
Institutes, II, i, 8 ; Westminster Larger Catechism, x, 3 ; Krauth, Infant Salvation in 
the Oalvinistic System ; Candlish on Atonement, part ii, chap. 1 ; Geo. P. Fisher, in New 
Bnglander, Apr. 1868 : 838 ; J. F. Clarke, Truths and Errors of Orthodojty, 360. 



PART VI. 

SOTEMOLOGT, OR THE DOCTRINE OP SALVATION THROUGH 
THE WORK OF CHRIST AND OF THE HOLT SPIRIT. 



CHAPTER I. 
CHRISTOLOGT, OR THE REDEMPTION WROUGHT BY CHRIST. 



SECTION I.— HISTORICAL PREPARATION FOR REDEMPTION. 

Since Qod had from eternity determined to redeem mankind, the history 
of the race from the time of the Fall to the coming of Christ was providen- 
tially arranged to prepare the way for this redemption. The preparation 
was two-fold : 

L Nboative Preparation, — in the history of the heathen world. 

This showed ( 1 ) the tme nature of sin, and the depth of spiritual igno- 
rance and of moral depravity to which the race, left to itself, must fall ; and 
( 2 ) the powerlessness of human nature to preserve or regain an adequate 
knowledge of God, or to deliver itself from sin by philosophy or art 

Why could not Eve have been the mother of the choBen seed, bb she doubtless at the 
first supposed that she was ? ( G«n. 4 : 1 — " and she oonMi?«d, and bare Cain [ i. c, *" gotten ', or 
* acquired ' ], and aid, I bare gotten a man, eren JehoTah " ). Why was not the cross set up at the 
gates of Eden ? Scripture intimates that a preparation was needful ( G«L 4 : 4 — " but whan 
tbe fiilnMi of the time oame, God tent forth hit Son" X Of the two agencies made use of, we have 
called heathenism the negative preparation. But it was not wholly negative ; it was 
partly positive also. Justin Martyr spoke of a Adyo« ovcp/utaruc^c among the heathen. 
Clement of Alexandria called Plato a Mw4r^ arruct^wv— a Greek-speaking Moses. Notice 
the priestly attitude of Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Pindar, Sophocles. The Bible 
recogrnizcs Job, Balaam, Melohisedek, as Instances of priesthood, or divine communi- 
cation, outside the bounds of the chosen people. Heathen religions either were not 
religions, or God had a part in them. Confucius, Buddha, Zoroaster, were at least 
reformers, raised up in God's providence. 6aL 4 : 3 classes Judaism with the 'rodimenta of 
the worid,' and Rom. 5 : 20 tolls us that 'the law oame in bends,* as a force cooperating with 
other human factors, primitive revelation, sin, etc.*' 

The positive preparation in heathenism receives greater attention when we oonoeive 
of Christ as the immanent GkMl, revealing himself in conscience and in history. This 
was the real meaning of Justin Martyr, Apol. 1 : 46 ; 2 : 10, 13— ** The whole race of men 
partook of the Logos, and those who lived according to reason ( K6yov \ were Christians, 
even though they were accounted atheists. Such among the Greeks were Socrates and 
Heracleitus, and those who resembled them. . . . Christ was known in part even to 
Socrates. . . . The teachings of Plato are not alien to those of Christ, though not in all 
respects similar. For all the writers of antiquity were able to have a dim vision 
of realities by means of the indwelling seed of the implanted Word ( Adyov )." Justin 
Uartyr claimed inspiration for Socrates. Tcrtullian spoke of Socrates as ** paene nos- 



G6C> CHRISTOLOGY, OR THE DOCTRINE OF REDEMPTION. 

ter ** — *' almost one of us.'* Paul speaks of the Cretans as having " a prophet of their ovn ** 
(Tit 1 : 12 )— probably Epimenldes (696 B. C.) whom Plato calls a ^«i<k a»'i?p — " a man of 
Gkxl,'^ and whom Cicero couples with Bacis and the Erythraean Sibyl. Clement of Alex- 
andria, Stromata, 1 : 19 ; 6 ; 5—" The same God who furnished both the covenants was the 
giver of the Greek philosophy to the Greeks, by which the Almighty is glorified among 
the GroelES.*' Augustine: *^ Plato made me know the true God ; Jcisus Christ showed 
me the way to him." 

Bruce, Apologetics, 207 — '* Qod gave to the Gentiles at least the starlight of religious 
knowledge. The Jews were elected for the sake of the Gentiles. There was some light 
even for pagans, though heathenism on the whole was a failure. But its very failure 
was a prepartion for receiving the true religion.** Hatch, Hibbert Lectures, 133, 238— 
'* Neo-Platonism, that splendid vision of incomparable and Irrecoverable cloudland in 
which the sun of Greek philosophy set. . . . On its ethical side Christianity had large 
elements in common with reformed Stoicism ; on its theological side it moved in har- 
mony with the new movements of Platonism.** E. G. Robinson : " The idea that all 
religions but the Christian are the direct work of the devil is a Jewish idea, and is now 
abandoned. On the contrary, God has revealed himself to the race just so far as they 
have been capable of knowing him. . . . Any religion is better than none, for all relig- 
ion implies restraint.'* 

John i : 9 — " There wu the troe light, even the li^t which lighteth erery man, eoming into the world "— has its 
Old Testament equivalent in Pi. 94 : 10 — " He that ehastiBeth the nations, shall not he oorTeett K^fin he that 
teaeheth man knowledge ? " Christ Is the great educator of the race. The preincarnatc Word 
exerted an influence upon the consciences of the heathen. He alone makes it true that 
**anima naturaliter Christiana est." Sabatier, Philos. Religion. 138-140— "Religion is 
union between God and the soul. That experience was first perfectly realized in Christ. 
Here are the ideal fact and the historical fact united and blended. Origcn's and Tertul- 
lian's rationalism and orthodoxy each has its truth. The religious consciousness of 
Christ is the fountain head from which Christianity has flowed. Ho was a beginning of 
life to men. He had the spirit of sonship— God in man, and man in God. *Quid 
interius Deo ? * He showed us insistence on the moral ideal, yet the preaching of mercy 
to the sinner. The gospel was the acorn, and Christianity is the oak that has sprung 
from it. In the acorn, as in the tree, are some Hebraic elements that are temporary. 
Paganism is the materializing of religion ; Judaism is the legalizing of religion. *In 
me,* says Charles Secretan, * lives some one greater than I.* '* 

But the positive element in heathenism was slight. Her altars and sacrifloes, her 
philosophy and art, roused cravings which she was powerless to satisfy. Her religious 
systems became sources of deeper corruption. There was no hope, and no progress. 
** The Sphynx's moveless calm symbolizes the monotony of Egyptian civilization." 
Classical nations became more despairing, as they became more cultivated. To the best 
minds, truth seemed impossible of attainment, and all hope of general well-being 
seemed a dream. The Jews were the only forward-looking people ; and all our modem 
confidence in destiny and development oomes from them. They, in their turn, drew 
their hopefulness solely from prophecy. Not their ** genius for religion,** but special 
revelation from God, made them what they were. 

Although God was in heathen history, yet so exceptional were the advantages of the 
Jews, that we can almost assent to the doctrine of the New Englandcr, Sept. 1883 : 676 
— ** The Bible does not recognize other revelations. It speaks of the ' &oe of the eoTering that 
eorereth all peoples, and the veil that is spread over all nations '( Is. 25 : 7 ); iota 14 : 16, 17 — ' who in the genentions 
gone bj soffered all the nations to walk in their own wajs. And jet he left not himself without witness ' = not an 
Internal revelation in the hearts of sages, but an external revelation in nature, 'in that he 
did good and gate joa from heaven rains and frtdtfU seasons, filling joor hearts with food and gladness.' The con- 
victions of heathen reformers with regard to divine inspiration were dim and intangi- 
ble, compared with the consciousness of prophets and apostles that God was speaking 
through them to his people.** 

On heathenism as a preparation for Christ, see Tholuck, Nature and Moral Influence 
of Heathenism, in Bib. Repos., 1833 : 80. 246, W. ; DtfUinger, Gentile and Jew ; Pressens^ 
Religions before Christ ; Max MUller, Science of Religion, 1-128 ; Cocker, Christianity 
and Greek Philosophy; Ackerman, Christian Element in Plato ; Farrar, Seekers after 
Qod ; Renan, on Rome and Christianity, in Hibbert Lectures for 1880. 

n. PosrnvB Preparation, — in the history of IsraeL 
A single people was separated from all others, from the time of Abraham, 
and was educated in three great truths : ( 1 ) the majesty of God, in hia 



HISTORICAL PREPARATION FOR REDEMPTION. 667 

nnitj, omnipotence, and holiness ; ( 2 ) the sinf ubiess of man, and his moral 
helplessness ; ( 3 ) the certainty of a coming salvation. This education 
from the time of Moses was conducted by the use of three principal 
agencies : 

A. Law. — The Mosaic legislation, ( a) by its theophanies and miracles, 
cultivated faith in a personal and almighty God and Judge ; ( & ) by its 
commands and threatenings, wakened the sense of sin ; ( c ) by its priestly 
and sacrificial system, inspired hope of some way of pardon and access to 
God. 

The education of the Jews was first of all an education by Law. In the history of the 
world, as in the history of the individual, law must precede frospel, John the Baptist 
must g-o before Christ, knowledKO of sin must prepare a welcome entrance for knowl- 
edge of a Savior. While the heathen were studying Ood's works, the chosen people 
were studying Ood. Men teach bywords as well as by works,— so does Gk>d. And 
words reveal heart to heart, as works never can. ^* The Jews were made to know, on 
behalf of all mankind, the guilt and shame of sin. Tet Just when the disease was at its 
height, the physicians were beneath contempt.** Wrl^rhtnour : ^ As if to teach all sub- 
sequent ages that no outward cleansing- would furnish a remedy, the great deluge, 
which washed away the whole sinful antediluvian world with the exception of one 
comparatively pure family, had not cleansed the world from sin.'* 

With this Arradual growth in the sense of sin there was also a widening and deepen- 
ing faith. Kuypcr, Work of the Holy Spirit, 87— ** Abel, Abraham, Moses = the indi- 
vidual, the family, the nation. By faith Abel obtained witness ; by faith Abraham 
received the son of the promise ; and by faith Moses led Israel throu^rh the Red Sea.'* 
Kurtz, Reli^onslehre, speaks of the relation between law and gospel as ** Bin fliessen- 
der Gegensatz " — ** a flowing antithesis *' — like that between flower and fruit. A. B. 
Davidson, Expositor, 6 : 163— ** The course of revelation is like a river, which cannot 
be cut up into sections." K G. Bobinson : ** The two fundamental ideas of Judaism 
were: 1. theolofirical — the unity of God; 2. philosophical— the distinctness of God 
from the material world. Judaism went to seed. Jesus, with the sledge-hammer of 
truth, broke up the dead forms, and the Jews thought he was destroying the Law." 
On methods pursued with humanity by God, see Simon, Beconciliation, 23E^^3U• 

B. Prophecy. — This was of two kinds : ( a ) verbal, — beginning with 
the protevangelium in the garden, and extending to within four hundred 
years of the coming of Christ ; ( 6 ) typical, — in persons, as Adam, Mel- 
chisedek, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Jonah ; and in acts, as 
Isaac's sacrifice, and Moses' lifting up the serpent in the wilderness. 

The relation of law to gospel was like that of a sketch to the finished picture, or of 
David's plan for the temple to Solomon's execution of it. When all other nations were 
sunk in pessimism and despair, the light of hope burned brightly among the Hebrews. 
The nation was forward-bound. Faith was its very life. The O. T. saints saw all the 
troubles of the present " sub specie otemitatis," and believed that "Light is sown for the right- 
eoos. And glAdness for the npright in hetrt " ( Pi. 97 : it ). The hope of Job was the hope of the chosen 
people : " I know thiU mj Redeemer liTeth, ind at last he will stand up upon the earth " ( Job 19 : 25 ). Button, 
Essays, 2 : 237 — ** Hebrew supematuraiism lias transmuted forever the pure natural- 
ism of Greek poetry. And now no modem poet can ever become really grreat who 
does not feel and reproduce in his writings the diflerenoe between the natural and the 
supernatural." 

Christ was the reality, to which the types and ceremonies of Judaism pointed ; and 
these latter disappeared when Christ had come, just as the petals of the blossom drop 
away when the fruit appears. Many promises to the O. T. saints which seemed to 
them promises of temporal blessing, were fulfilled in a better, because a more spiritual, 
way than they cxi^)ected. Thus Ood cultivated in them a boundless trust— a trust 
which was essentially the same thing with the faith of the now dispensation, because 
it was the absolute reliance of a consciously helpless sinner upon God's method of sal- 
vation, and so was implicitly, though not explicitly, a faith in Christ. 

The protevangelium (Gen. 3: 15) said '*tt[t]ii8 promised seed] shall braise thj head." The 



668 CHRISTOLOOy, or the DOCTBINE of REDEMITION. 

" it '* was rendered in some Latin manuscripts "" ipso.'* Henoe Roman Oatholic divines 
attributed the victory to the Virgin. Notice that Satan was cursed, but not Adam and 
Eve ; for they were candidates for restoration. The promise of the Mcesiah narrowed 
itself down as the race grew older, from Abraham to Judah, David, Bethlehem, and the 
Virsrin. Prophecy spoke of ''theioflptre" and of "thAMTentj weeks." Haggai and Malachi 
foretold that the Lord should suddenly come to the second temple. Christ was to be 
true man and true Ood ; prophet, priest, and king ; humbled and exalted. When proph- 
ecy had become complete, a brief interval elapsed, and then he, of whom Mooes in 
the law, and the prophets, did write, actually came. 

All these preparations for Christ's coming, however, through the perversity of man 
became most formidable obstacles to the progress of the gospel. The Roman Bmpire 
put Christ to death. Philosophy rejected Christ as foolishness. Jewish ritualism, the 
mere shadow, usurped the place of worship and faith, the substance of religion. QQd*s 
last method of preparation in the case of Israel was that of 

C. Judgmeni — Repeated divine chastisements for idolatry ctdminated 
in the overthrow of the kingdom, and the captivity of the Jews. The exile 
had two principal effects : (a) religious, — in giving monotheism firm root 
in the heart of the people, and in leading to the establishment of the syna- 
gogue-system, by which monotheism was thereafter preserved and propa- 
gated ; (&) civil, — in converting the Jews from an agricultural to a trading 
people, scattering them among all nations, and finally imbuing them with 
the spirit of Boman law and organization. 

Thus a people was made ready to receive the gospel and to propagate 
it throughout the world, at the very time when the world had become 
conscious of its needs, and, through its greatest philosophers and poets, 
was expressing its longings for deliverance. 

At the Junction of Europe, Asia, and Africa, there lay a little land through which 
passed all the caravan-routes from the East to the West. Palestine was ** the eye of 
the world.'* The Hebrews throughout the Roman world were ** the greater Palestine 
of the Dispersion.'* The scattering of the Jews through all lands had prepared a mono- 
theistic starting point for the gospel in every heathen city. Jewish synagogues had 
prepared places of assembly for the hearing of the gvwpcl. The Greek tanguage — the 
universil literary language of the world— had prepared a medium in which that gospel 
could be spoken. ** Cfesar had unified the Latin West, as Alexander the Greek East '* ; 
and universal peace, together with Roman roads and Roman law, made it possible for 
that gospel, when once it had got a foothold, to spread itself to the ends of the earth. 
The first dawn of missionary enterprise appears among the proselyting Jews before 
Christ's time. Christianity laid hold of this proselyting spirit, and sanctified it, to 
conquer the world to the faith of Christ. 

Beyschlag, N. T. Theology, 2: 9, 10— ** In his great expedition across the Hellespont, 
Paul reversed the course which Alexander took, and carried the gospel into Europe to 
the centres of the old Greek culture." In all these preparations we see many lines 
converging to one result, in a manner inexplicable, unless we take them as proofs of 
the wisdom and power of God preparing the way for the kingdom of his Son ; and all 
this in spite of the fact that "a hardening in part hath beiUlen Israel, ontil the ftilness of the Gentilee be ooae 
In" (Rom. 11: 25), James Robertson, Early Religion of Israel, 16— "Israel now instructs 
the world in the worship of Mammon, after having once taught it the knowledge of 
God." 

On Judaism, as a preparation for Christ, see DOllinger, Gentile and Jew, 2:291-419,* 
Martensen, Dogmatics, 224-236 ; Hengstenberg, Christology of the O. T. ; Smith, Proph* 
ecy a Preparation for Christ; Van Oosterzee, Dogmatics, 458-485 ; Fairbairn, Typology; 
MacWhorter, Jahveh Christ; Kurtz, Chrlstliche Rcligionslehre, 114; Edwards' History 
of Redemption, in Works, 1:397-395; Walker, Philosophy of the Plan of Salvation; 
Conybeare and Howson, Life and Epistles of St. Paul, 1 : 1-87 ; Luthardt, Fundamental 
Truths, 357-381 ; Schaff, Hist. Christian Ch., 1 : 32-49; Butler's Analogy. Bohn's ed., 328- 
238 ; Bushnell, Vicarious Sac., 63-«i; Max MUUer, Science of Language, 3 : 443; Thoma- 
aius, Christi Person imd Werk, 1 : 463-486 ; Fisher, Beginnings of Christianity, 47-78. 



THE PEBSOK OF CHRIST. 669 

SECTION II.— THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 

The redemptdon of mankind from sin was to be effected throngh a Medi* 
ator who shotdd unite in himself both the hnman nature and the divine, in 
order that he might reconcile God to man and man to God. To facilitate 
an understanding of the Scriptural doctrine under consideration, it will be 
desirable at the outset to present a brief historical survey of views respect- 
ing the Person of Ohrist 

In the history of doctrine, as we have seen, belleft held in solution at the hegianiag 
are only gradually precipitated and crystallized into definite formulas. The first ques- 
tion which Christians naturally asked themselves was " Whal think y dthn Ghriit " ( Mat 22 : 42 ) ; 
then his relation to the Father i then, in due succession, the nature of sin, of atone- 
ment, of Justification, of regeneration. Connecting these questions with the names of 
the great leaders who sought respectively to answer them, we have : 1. the Person of 
Christ, treated by Gregory Nazianzon (328) ; 2, the Trinity, by Athanasius (826-973); 
8. Sin, by Augustine ( 363-480) ; 4. Atonement, by Anselm ( 1038-1100) ; 6. Justification by 
faith, by Luther ( 1486-1660 ) ; (^ Regeneration, by John Wesley ( 1708-1791 ) ; — six week- 
days of theology, leaving only a seventh, for the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, which may 
be the work of our age. John 10 : 86 — " hin vkom the hthor wietifled and lent into the world " — hints 
at some mysterious process by which the Son was prepared for his mission. Athanasius : 
*' If the Word of God is in the world, as in a body, what is there strange in affirming 
that he has also entered into humanity t** This is the natural end of evolution from 
lower to higher. See Medd, Bampton Lectures for 1882, on The One Mediator: The 
Operation of the Son of Qod in Nature and in Grace ; Orr, Qod*s Image in Man. 

L Histobioaij Subvet of Yibws bespeoting thb Pbbbon of Ghbist. 

1. The Ehicmitea ( |ra« = « poor ' ; A. D. 107 ? ) denied the reality of 
ChriBt's divine nature, and held him to be merely man, whether naturally 
or supematurally conceived. This man, however, held a peculiar relation 
to God, in that, from the time of his baptism, an unmeasured fulness of the 
divine Spirit rested upon him. Ebionism was simply Judaism within the 
pale of the Christian church, and its denial of Christ's godhood was occa- 
sioned by the apparent incompatibility of this doctrine with monotheism. 

FUrst ( Heb. Lexicon ) derives the name * Ebionite * from the word signifying * poor ' ; 
seel8.2&:4 — "thoahastbeeaeetroogholdtotbepoor"; ]bt.5:8~"Bleeiadarethepoorinepirit'* Itmeans 
** oppressed, pious souls.*' Bpiphanius traces them back to the Christians who took 
refuge, A. D. 66, at Pulla, Just before the destruction of Jerusalem. They lasted down 
to the fourth century. Domer can assign no age for the formation of the sect, nor any 
historically ascertained person as its head. It was not Judaic Christianity, but only a 
fraction of this. There were two divisions of the Ebionites : 

( a ) The Nazarenes, who held to the supernatural birth of Christ, while they would 
not go to the length of admitting the preexisting hypostasis of the Son. They are said 
to have had the gospel of Matthew, in Hebrew. 

( h ) The Cerinthian Ebionites, who put the baptism of Christ in pl^ce of his super- 
natural birth, and made the ethical sonship the cause of the physical. It seemed to 
them a heathenish fable that the Son of God should be bom of the Virgin. There was 
no personal union between the divine and human in Christ. Christ, as distinct from 
Jesus, was not a merely impersonal power descending upon Jesus, but a preteisting 
hy()08tasis above the world-creating powers. The Cerinthian Ebionites, who on the 
whole best represent the spirit of Ebionism, approximated to Pharisaic Judaism, and 
were hostile to the writings of Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews, in fact, is Intended 
to counteract an Ebiunitic tendency to overstrain law and to underrate Christ. In a 
complete view, however, should also be mentioned : 

( c ) The Gnostic Ebionism of the pseudo-Clementines, which in order to destroy the 
deity of Christ and save the pure monotheism, so-called, of primitive religion, gave up 
even the best part of the Old Testament. In all its forms, Ebionism conceives of God 
and man asextemal toeach other. GK>d oouid not beoome man. Gbzist was no more 



^7*> CHiLLsTOLOST, 0£ TH£ lOIT&ISX OF UCDEMPnOS. 



Uk;r-^=i *7*rrj*^T *oi:Tr*f* '•^it ^litr ??«rs. Awcr i-* 




most of the Gi»ss£cs in the ^tcozA ctzxzrr %xA tbe lEftcicbceB in the tiind, 
denied 'Jcjt realitj of CLrs«('3 LT;--Ar bodj. Tbis Tiev vas the logiicml 

se^inei-oe of tLeir ftsE;in:pti!:*n of the ir.h-^Tfent eril of TnattfT, If matter is 
evil aind Christ vik& pnre, then Christ's hiazAn iK^djinost haxe been mevdy 
phAntaanal. Dooetian vms aznpl j poigui philnfiophj intzodoeed inio the 
chnich. 



Tbe GiMStic »*»«"<'<^ held to a leal Imman OirlR. wiiit vbcaa tke dhrloe ««« 
uaiu.^ «t the bapt^o: : bat the foUowen o€ Tlaff'rtVB t»rame Doeetv. To them, tho 
U>2 J of CbriR waf merei j a seetBcn^ ooe. Tbere was do real hfe or deaxh. ValentimB 
in^le the .£00, Christ, Mrth a boilj p>«u«lj paecmatv aad vorthj of hliaw If, paat 
thiTjugfatheU>3rof the Virginia? water thnL«gii a reie^ tat ay qp into himaelffinChiiy 
of tb€: baman natune throng which he puK^i : or as a raj of hfbt throush oolored 
glMM which rill J imparts to the li^ht a p^i-nioci of its own darkness Christ's life waa 
cimplj a tikE<iphanj. Tbe Patrifawiinff and SabelliaQS. vho are onlj aectB of Ae 
DoceCic denied all real bumacitj to Christ. Maaoo, Faith of the Goqiel, 141— **Ho 
treads tbe thorns of death axnl shame * like a trinmphal path.* of vhich he nerer Cell 
the •harpneas. There vas derek>(-ment only extemaUj and in app«>«raooe. Ko ignop* 
ance can be ascribed to him amidit the omniaciefioe of the Godhead." SbeOej : ** A 
mortal shape to him Was as the vapor dim Which the orient planet animatea with 
liirbt.** Tbestrr/ntrsrrumenta^ainst I>ooeti8mwasfoaDdiniA.t:14— ^ftiMlkaihtAil- 
irw uiv Antn it iea ui ued. M liai tisMtf iK l:kt atizaa- Tu'MJk tf tiM ■aa'* 

That liooetism appeared so earlj. show* that the impression Christ made was that of 
a superhuman being^. Amcmg manj of the Gnostics, the philosophy which lar at tbe 
basis of their iK^cetism was a pantheistic apiotheosis of the world. God did not need 
to become man, for man was esaentaail j divine. This view, and the opposite error of 
JufiaLfm, alrea^ly mentioned, both showed their insolBciencj by attempts to oombine 
with each other, as in the Alexandrian philosophy. See Domer, Hist» Doct. Fersov 
CbrM, A.l:in8-2Se, and Glaubenslehre,S:30?-3]O (Syst. Doct^ 3 : SOl-aOB ) ; Keander, 
Ch.IIistM 1:387. 

3. 77ie Arians ( Arins, oondemned at Xioe, 325) denied the integrity 
of the divine nature in Christ. They regarded the Logos who united him- 
self to hiimanitv in Jesus Christ, not as ix>s8e6sed of absolute godhood, but 
as the first and highest of created beings. This view originated in a mi»- 
iuterj^retation of the Scriptural accounts of Christ's state of humiliation^ 
and in miHtaking temix>rarj subordination for original and permanent 
ine<|ualitj. 

Arianism is called by Domer a reaction from SabelUanism. Sabellius had reduced 
tbe incanjation of Christ to a temporary phenomenon. Arius thoufirbt to lay stress <m 
tbe hyiKwtasiH of the S^iil, and to give it fixity and substance. But, to his mind, the 
rf^ality of .SoriAhip seemed to require subordination to the Father. Ori^en had taught 
the Hij)K>rrlioatirjn of the Son to the Father, in coonection with his doctrine of eternal 
generation. Arius held to tbe subordination, and also to the generation, but this last, 
he d(x;lan?d, crmld not be eternal, but must be in time. See Domer, Person Christy 
A. 2 : m-'ZiA^ and Glaubenslehre, 2 : 307, 312, 313 ( Syst. Doct., 3 : 203, 207-210) ; Hetaoff, 
Eiicyclor^lldle, art. : Arianismus. See also this CompendiuoL, Vol. 1 : 3S&-330. 

4. Tfie Apollinarians ( Apollinaris, condemned at Constantinople, 881) 
denied the int<?grity of Christ's human nature. According to this view, 
Christ had no human vov^ or wevfiOf other than that which was furnished by 



THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 671 

tho divine nature. Christ had only the hnman ai^fia and ^x^ ; the place 
of the human I'^t-f or 7n;n>//a was filled by the divine Logos. Apollinarism 
is an attem2)t to construe the doctrine of Christ's person in the forms of the 
Platonic trichotomy. 

Lest divinity should seem a forei^rn element, when added to this curtailed manhood, 
ApoUlnariH said that there was an eternal tendency to the human in the Logros himself ; 
that in God was the true manhood ; that the Logros is the eternal, archetypal man. But 
h(^re is no becoming man — only a manifestation in flesh of what the Logros already was. 
So we have a Christ of great head and dwarfed body. Justin Martyr preceded Apolli- 
narls in this view. In opposing it, the church Fathers said that ** what the Son of God 
has not taken to himself, he has not sanctified " —rh avpoaXrivrov koX a^tpdnmrov. See 
Domer, Jahrbuch f . d. Thool., 1 : 807-408 — " The impossibility, on the Arian theory, of 
making two finite souls into one, finally led to the [ Apollinarian ] denial of any human 
soul in Christ *' ; see also, Domer, Person Christ, A. 2 : 368-809, and Glaubenslehre, 
2 : 310 ( Syst Doct., 3 : 206, 207); Shedd, Hist. Doctrine, 1 : 394. 

Apollinaris taught that the eternal Word took into union with himself, not a com- 
plete human nature, but an irrational human animal. Simon, Reconciliation, 829, 
comes near t«i being an Apollinarian, when he maintains that the incarnate Logos was 
human, but was not a man. He is the constituter of man, self-limited, in order that he 
may save that to which he has given life. Gore, Incarnation, 08 — ** Apollinaris sug- 
gested that the archetype of manhood exists in God, who made man in his own image, 
so that man's nature in some sense preexisted in God. The Son of G<xl was eternally 
human, and he could fill the place of the human mind in Christ without his ceasing to 
be in some sense divine. . . . This the church negatived, — man is not God, nor God 
man. The first principle of theism is that manhood at the bottom is not the same thing 
as Godhead. This is a principle intimately bound up with man^s responsibility and the 
reality of sin. The interests of theism were at stake.^* 

5. 7%e Nestorians ( Nestorins, removed from the Patriarchate of Con- 
stantinople, 431 ) denied the real nnion between the diyine and the human 
natures in Christ, making it rather a moral than an organic one. They 
refused therefore to attribute to the resultant unity the attributes of each 
nature, and regarded Christ as a man in very near relation to God. Thus 
they virtually held to two natures and two persons, instead of two natures 
in one person. 

Nestorius disliked the phrase: *'Mary, mother of God.^ The Chaloedon statement 
asserted its truth, with the significant addition : " as to his humanity." Nestorius 
made Christ a peculiar temple of God. He believed in ovi^a^cia, not ci'iMnc,— Junction 
and indwelling, but not absolute union. He made too much of the analogy of the 
union of the believer with Christ, and separated as much as possible the divine and the 
human. The two natures were, in his view, aAAo« xol aAAo«, Instead of being aAAo koI 
oAAo, which together constitute clc— one personality. The union which he accepted 
was a moral union, which makes Christ simply God and man. Instead of the Gk)d-man. 

John of Damascus compared the passion of Christ to the felling of a tree on which 
the sun shines. The axe fells the tree, but does no harm to the sunbeams. So the blows 
which struck Christ*s humanity caused no harm to his deity ; while the flesh suffered, 
the deity remained impassible. This leaves, however, no divine efficacy of the human 
sufferings, and no personal union of the human with the divine. The error of Nestorius 
arose from a philosophic nominalism, which refused to conceive of nature without 
personality. He believed in nothing more than a local or moral union, like the mar- 
riage union, in which two become one ; or like the state, which is sometimes called a 
moral person, because having a unity composed of many persons. See Domer, Person 
Christ, B. 1 : 63-79, and Glaubenslehre, 2 : 815, 810 ( Syst. Doot., 8 : 211-218) ; Philippl, 
Glaubenslehre, 4 : 210 ; Wilberforce, Incarnation, 152-154. 

''There was no need here of the virgin-birth,— to secure a sinless father as well as 
mother would have been enough. Nestorianism holds to no real incarnation— only to 
an alliance between God and man. After the fashion of the Siamese twins, Chang and 
Bug, man and God are Joined together. But the incarnation is not merely a higher 
degree of the mystical union.** Gore, Incarnation, 94—'* Nestorius adopted and pcip< 



€?2 CHi:I.-7>lf»T, Oi TEZ lf>>.lJLi3kX OW mS^IMTZZOS. 




ek^e Tbe dhti^ z:jzz< •:T<e?Tove7 ilr: L^'-a^ , ix i-Miw^ i£^ the Lnzzan ^wm 

XK/t ii. ftZ nspie^nK tlr: aciir, ftfir? tlr: -zzir.i^ tbftS s viK bef'iiR^ Hoxe the 
Yjwtz'JjkZA Trne ofvri. caZai ILiOjf^j-sse&r becftsae thej TartaaDrgwhiffed 
tiw: two zjcrzs^^ xo ir.fc. 




Bf^Tt- Twrj ■-*?! tit w-.r-i* c*-»-|,Tr-«. 

#up, iij tJM: rzyyrecMd vm nrnzA^r 'ic t^ PATC of iht t&AlJer ofct>ect. HniBBi:tj 
to ktm*T*.^l .:. 'V-rtr. ki '.o te ftJKifnnfacr jqr. Tbe vsxc va» iLnstiBfied bj ciw-uou , m 
BV.'tk! fx>ai{ </ux^l^ '.f «. .-Tvr ar*r2 p>jd. A zao?« nkoiers i^lmtrmiiofi v^oild be tkas of tte 
ctKroa.cftj ujxioo of ft& ft/.->i aad aa *-*f'-^ to form a aa.! im.ike estber of the euMUiu cma, 

Id «r?ect Uitift yi^sfjrj ^f^t.^^ the faumiui eafcnksu and, vith tfaik tbe pnMghilrty of 
fttob^ui'rot, OD tbe ;Ajrt of faoz^AD Z3anu«, fe» weil «» of x«ai imioo of man vith God. 
£ uob a nuur^cau ur.r.'O of the tvo DAtum m Eutj-ches deacntcd Is xocooRiRait vith anf 
R«i tM^*,tftifaj nt^iu fjo Um; p«rt of the Lottos, —the manb«<Ml is ve;;-<u^ a» fUugorr •• 
tif'On tbts ih0^jry of ibe jMMjtrju. 31 anoo. Faith of the GcFf <■:. IfO — ** This tumt not the 
ii<0\hffaf\ onif but the nuuob'jod a-lM* into somethizif fWvdfii — into aome """■'■■^ 
nature. J^^vlxt axi4 betveen — the faboioiis nature of a iemi-hnman dMnisod,** like 
the <>ntMur, 

Tbe autb'jr r^ **Tbe German TbeokNTT** MJB that ** Cbrist't human nature waauttnly 
bereft '/f ieif, aod was cxhing eiae but a house and habitation of God."* Tlie Mj^stioa 
wouid r«ave buman perionalitj bo completely the organ of the di line that ** ve maj 
be u> GM what uian't baod is to a man," and that ** I " and ** mine ** ma j o»ae to hare 
tuny wiunlnif, Ikith the«; riews aaror of EntycUanism. On the other hand, the 
Unitanan auyg that Christ vas ** a mere man.* But there cannot be such a thiny as m 
m'Tre man. excJui>ive of au^rht above and beyond him, seif-oent^ri'd and aetf-moved. 
Tbe Trtuitaiian i^jtatnimtM d'rclares himself as believing that Christ is God and man, 
thus jrupiyinir tbe exiirtence of two sutjEtancesi. Better say that Christ is the God-man, 
wlK/ marjifr«tH all the diviiie powers and qualities of which all men and all nature are 
partial I'raUxlJmfrnts. See Domer, Person of Christ, B. 1 : 83-93. and GlaQbenslehre» 
t'.'SVuHlUiHyiit. lMjcu,S:iilir^6}; GuericiEe,Ch. History. l:S;6-aaO. 

T\it: tffTfigfAiig ourvcj would seem to show that history had exhausted the 
poHHibilitieH of Lc-n.-Hv, and that the future denials of the doctrine of Christ's 
jK;rwm TJiuiit Ik;, iu CKhf^nce, forms of the views already mentioned. AH 
Cintroverairjn with regard to the jjerson of Christ must^ of necessity, hinge 
n\f*tii one of three jioiutn : first, the reality of the two natures ; secondly, 
the integrity of the two natures; thirdly, the union of the two natures in 
ou«) IX'.rtntti, Of th(;so x^oiiits, Ebionism and Docetism deny the reality of 
tlio uatiirr;s; ArianiHrn and AixjUinarianism deny their integrity; while 
NeKtoriuniHrn and Entychianbtm deny their proper union. In opposition 
to fill theHc errors, the orthodox doctrine held its ground and mftinfAina it 
U) thiH day. 

Wo muy ur>|)!y Ut this subject what Dr. A. P. Pcabody said in a different connection : 
** ThiM'fiiion of iiin(k*Ilty wuh closf^l almost as soon as that of the Scriptures *'— modem 
tjiiti(?Il<rv<?rH hfivliiK'. for tin; most [lart, rer>cat<xl the objections of their ancient prede* 
ocflsors. Ilruoks, Foundations of Zotilo^y, ISB — ** As a shell which has failed to bunt is 



THB TWO KATURES OF CHRIST. 673 

picked up on some old battlo-fleld, by somo one on whom oxperienoo Is thrown away, 
and is cxi)l(xled by him in the bosom of his approving family, with disastrous results, 
so oue of these abandoned beliefs may be dug up by the head of some Intellectual 
family, to the confusion of those who follow him as their leader." 

7. The Orthodox doctrine ( promulgated at Chalcedon, 461 ) holds that 
in tho one person Jesus Christ there are two natures, a human nature and 
a divine nature, each in its completeness and integrity, and that these two 
natures are organically and indissolubly united, yet so that no third nature 
is formed thereby. In brief, to use the antiquated dictum, orthodox doc- 
trine f orbitls us either to divide the i)erson or to confound the natures. 

That this doctrine is Scriptural and rational, we have yet to show. We 
may most easily arrange our proofs by reducing the three points mentioned 
to two, namely : first, the reality and integrity of the two natures ; sec- 
ondly, the union of the two natures in one person. 

The formula of Chalcedon is negative, with the exception of its assertion of a ivmnt 
virotrrariKri, It proceeds from the natures, and regards Uie result of the union to be the 
person. Each of the two natures is regarded as in movement toward the other. The 
symbol says nothing of an avwwrravLa of the human nature, nor does it say that the 
Logos furnishes the ego in the personality. John of Damascus, however, pushed for- 
ward to these conclusions, and his work, translated into Latin, was used by Peter Lom- 
bard, and determined the views of the Western church of the Middle Ages. Domer 
regards this as having given rise to the Mariolatry, saint-invocation, and transub- 
stantiution of the Roman Catholic Church. See Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 4:189«7.; 
Domer, Person Christ, B. 1 : 93-119, and Glaubenslehre, 2 : 830-328 ( Syst. Doct., 3 : 216- 
223 ), in which last passage may be found valuable matter with regard to the changing 

uses of the words trp&atovovy v»6<rTa<ri«, ovaia, etc. 

Gore, Incarnation, 96, 101— '* These decisions simply express in a new form, without 
substantial addition, the apostolic teaching as it is represented in the New Testament. 
They express it in a new form for protective purposes, as a legal enactment protects a 
moral principle. They are developments only in the sense that they represent the 
apoRtolic teaching worked out into formulas by the aid of a terminology which was 

supplied by Greek dialectics What the church borrowed from Greek thought 

was her terminology, not the substance of her creed. Even in regard to her termi- 
nology we must make one important reservation ; for Christianity laid all stresB on the 
personality of Qod and man, of which Hellenism had thought but little.** 

n. The two Natures of Christ, —their Beautt and Intbobitt. 

1. 77*c Humanity of Christ 

A. Its Eealit J. — This may be shown as follows : 

( a ) He expressly called himself, and was called, '' man.' 



n 



John 8 : 40 — "je seek to kill me, a nun that hatb told yon the tnith"; ieti2:22— "Jetof of lanntk,a: 
approTed of God onto joa"; Rom. 5:15 — "the one man, Jesoi Ghriit" ; 1 Cor. 15:21 — "bj man oame death, by 
man came also the resorreetion of the dead " ; 1 Tim. 2 : 5 — " one mediatw alio betveen Ck>d ud men, himself man, 
Chrut Jesos." Compare the genealogies in Mat. 1:1-17 and Lake 3 : 23-38, the former of which 
proves Jesus to be in the royal line, and the latter of which proves him to be in the 
natural line, of succession from David ; the former tracing back his lineage to Abraham, 
and the latter to Adam. Christ is therefore the son of David, and of the stock of IsraeL 
Compare also the phrase "Son of man," e. q.^ in Mat. 20 : 28, which, however much it may mean 
Ai addition, certainly indicates the veritable humanity of Jesus. Compare, finally, the 
term "flesh'* '—human nature ), applied to him in John 1 : 14— "And the Word beoams flesh," and 
in i John 4 :2— "erery spirit that eonfesseth that Jesos Christ is ocme in the flesh is of God.** 

" Jesus is the true Son of man whom he proclaimed himself to be. This implies that 
he is the representative of all humanity. Consider for a moment what is implied in 
your being a man. How many parents had you? You answer. Two. How many 
grandparents? You answer. Four. How many great-grandparents? Bight. How 
manygreat-great-grandparents? Sixteen. So the number of your anoestora inoreaBes 

43 



€T4 czjlzszoukt^ o» tei »:7xiyx or 




or J '.CM*, vi-j'ji. 7"3iL Via?- rrar^fleiQX ;c^T -C<fr kzszl "X tiL "^i 

H^ -vjtf t^ S-.c *^ mis. Ilt zi:r^ -aao. i* -vi* sa:B. cf 
Uef je*ise l^.o^.a BiL:«a!i C*: 







J^»j§ ■■^f 'at p^rfrtiijoc of se— - ~ --«f JOT*. F;r azr 
i imx r 'J . or Be;«n.'^l b.=HK-Lf Ir-.^z. =. w^:c ibu in fca ced: 

of ifae v.n^'t Hdb ^x s er i k« H. E. h..<tca&. Er±^:9 •:; i^*r C^irv^iA^ Lrfe.: 

i&*A. Hi« rt-fc:yjc :o i*«e b.:=;*n rm.:« x r.-'T t^t b* was *=i:<2fecr i 
by U«air »2i-.*.ri«". ;rrf=: *rs>:rT ose 1 jt "r — .-^>f. Ha relAtiKi v« lae rmcr 
d:J*rKg.i.ai'ri'" y ^'Jt a cr'U^^'-'^.ir-f r-. !;&:. "O. He t«# ci-t gieafrwCly bot inckUKiTclj 
nuuu .... Tbi& t.<L:.j T*:jL\yjz. tLi: cas at a-1 dirv^^i- coc^pare vith n a titax of Ailaaa, 

wbo in. a r»^ ttc:i«r v«» V- w»»«>»*j T&&1 o: =.;: jtte uvI'roL.iii^r and poascnLni^ oC 

er^Q ooe oc^^r. vhjch the 7-:«rrj^ir§ cf xum to vat! ic^n l:r:;«rftct:r a^'pnoad^ te oolf 
poK^bkr. ia ai J- f --oe» of the ^or ia. :..• thAi «; ir-l: ■; f ixAn whx b S* the <f)sni of God : to 
the s^iit of God b^^vz:e, ihroi:«fli iacaraat:<«u the tpirt: of ztmzi. .... If Cbrwi^i 
bun^azuij wen!; iwt tb« h;;mas>ity of I>e::r. it t.<ou.-d do: stand in ibe vi^ indasdrvt. 
^jQfutax&atzny r*:lAT.'.fS. in vhjch it f(ai«<i«w in fact, to the hi-.manny of ail other 
.... Ytt tbe c^fctre of Oirlrt's beizff as xzao va» not in himsetf btit in God. He 
the CfXpreasy-A, bj w:'..ng reflectioa, of Another."* 

( « ) He was moved br the instinctive principle8» and he eacexciaed the 
active poweiBy which Ixrlong to a nrirmal and developed hnmanity (hunger, 
thirf»t, weariness, sleep, love, oompaasion, anger, mnxietv, fear, groaning, 
weeping, prayer y. 



IsL4:2— "MiAvwlss^wil'iiika^fza— -IiuM'': 4:C— -;ms wnAnLkar««KUvnkkk 
j«ru2«T, «£ U.U tj *iM Vfu ; Ial ^ : 24 — "tic bst: vit amd x-jX *.m nm: to W vv h^ ' ; Isfc 
tt : 21 -* "iwu kiucsf s^ kia :*Ttd i-a " : Ia& } :3S — ^ viai W av ut suhzi^ W vm arrtl viik mb- 
yMft.« la tMa"; IirJc 2 : S~ " Isciui ncid %m-a et tua v.u auv. lc=f |:rifT«i k :kt kviacif tf tkv 
kart ' ; Im. 5:7 — "K^.iaezan T.:k ttrcc cr^ a^ tan ob kia ikis vu &^ a art kia flraa teA" ; 
Jwia:27 — "hTaar ka: tivciM: &ii tu: iuL: I »t? Fttka. mn at frsUakxr"; 11:33 — 'ht 
fraand la U* i^ " ; 2S— '';aBS Tt^t"; liL i4:Z3 — -k« vat cy iaa *.ki bxs-jlB k^ a fnr." li|^ 
2:14 — ''y«itisifr:4fU''J«auftli vsaak«raecf*.i, MX ke ranr.k t» M«d cf Ibruaa " (Kendrkk)L 

Prr>f. J. P. Eilvfrmail, on The Elricutioa of Jcssus. finds thf ft lUoa-inff intimations aa to 
his dtfUvcTj. It wan chanuterized by L Naturalness (sitclntr. as at Capcmaum > ; 2L 
IXflitjeration rcu]tivat«8 rrsspoiujFeDcae in his hearers); 3. Circu inspect ion (he looked 
at ViiVer}; 4. Dramatic action ( woman taken in adultery ) : 5. :?eIf-control (authority, 
pTilif;, no vociferation, denunciatifjn of Scribes and Pliariiii.'O *. All these are manifea- 
tat ions of truly buman «jualiti«j8a:id virtues. The epbik* of James, the brother of oar 
Lfird, with ita Txaltatlon of a iii<.frk, quif't and holy life, may be an unconscious refloo- 
tlon of the <:hMraet(rr of J<f»j.*. as it liad appeared to James during the early days at 
Naaarbth. .Hr^ John th<; llaiiti^t'.v «rzclamation, ■'IkATeBadtobekifdadflfika" (laLlrliXmaj 
tm an inftronoti from his intercoum with Jeiua in childhood and youth. 



THE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 676 

(d) He was subject to the ordinary laws of human development^ both in 
body and soul (grew and waxed strong in spirit ; asked questions ; grew in 
wisdom and stature ; learned obedience ; suffered being tempted ; was 
made perfect through sufferings ). 

Inke 2: 40— "Uib child gnw, and vizsd ftrong, flM vitk viidom "; 46 — " sitting in the midst of ths tssohsn, 
both haaring thim, and asking thorn qoestions " ( here, at his tweif th year, he appears first to become 
fully ooDsclouB that he is the Sent of God, the Son of God ; 49 — ** know ys not that I must bo in 
my Fathor's house? *' lit. * in the thiners of my Father * ) ; rs— "ad?anoed in wisdom and stature " ; Heb. 
5:8 — "learned obodieneebj the things whioh he salEtnd'* ; 2:18— "in that he himself hath soffered being tempted, 
hois able to socoor them that are tempted " ; 10— "it beosms him .... to make the aathor of their salvatiai perfsot 
throngh sofferings.'* 

Keble : *' Was not our Lord a little child, Tausrht by decrees to pray ; By father dear 
and mother mild Instructed day by day ? *' Adamson, The Mind in Christ : ** To Henry 
Drummond Christianity was the crown of the evolution of the whole universe. Jesus' 
growth in stature and in favor with God and men is a picture in miniature of the aire- 
loDfiT evolutionary process.'* Forrest, Christ of History and of Experience, 183— The 
incarnation of the Son was not his one revelation of God, but the interpretation to 
sinful humanity of all his other revelations of God in nature and history and moral 

experience, which had been darkened by sin The Logos, incarnate or not, is the 

TcAof as well as the ipxn of creation." 

Andrew Murray, Spirit of Christ, M, 87— '* Though now baptized himself, he cannot 
yet baptize others. He must first, in the power of his baptism, meet temptation and 
overcome it; must learn obedience and suffer; yea, through the eternal Spirit, offer 
himself a sacrifice to God and his Will ; then only could he afresh receive the Holy 
Spirit as the reward of obedience, with the power to baptize all who belong to him *' ; 
8eeleU2:33— "Beingtherefbrebjthe right hand of God exalted, and haying reoeiTed of the Father the promise of 
the Holj Spirit, he hath poored forth thii^ whioh ye see and hear." 

( 6 ) He suffered and died ( bloody sweat ; gave up his spirit ; his side 
pierced, and straightway there came out blood and water). 

Lake 22: 44 — "beinginanagonjheprajedmore earnestly; and his sweat beesme u it ware gnat drops of blood 
falling down upon the gnrand"; John i9:30~"he bowed his head, and gare up his spirit"; 84 — "one of the 
soldiers with a tpur pieroed his side, and straightway there eame oat blood and water" — held by Stroud, 
Physical Cause of our Lord's Death, to be proof that Jesus died of a broken heart. 

Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, 1 : 9-10— " The Lord is said to have grown in wisdom and 
favor with God, not because it was so, but because he acted as if it were so. So he was 
exalted after death, as if this exaltation were on account of death.** But we may reply : 
Resolve all signs of humanity into mere appearance, and you lose the divine nature 
as well as the human ; for God is truth and cannot act a lie. The babe, the child, even 
the man, in certain respects, was ignorant. Jesus, the boy, was not making crosses, as 
in Over beck's picture, but rather yokes and plows, as Justin Martyr relates— serving 
a real apprenticeship in Joseph's workship : Mark 6 : 3 —"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Maiy ? " 

See Holmun Hunt's picture, ** The Shadow of the Cross '* — in which not Jesus, but 
only Mary, sees the shadow of the cross upon the wall. He lived a life of faith, as well 
as of prayer ( Heb. 12 : 2 — "* Jeeas the aathor [captain, prince] and perfeeter of oor faith " ), dependent 
upon Scripture, which was much of it, as Fs. 16 and 118, and Is. 49^ SQ^ 81, written for him, 
as well as about him. See Park, Discourses, 297-327; Deutsch, Bemains, 131— ** The 
boldest transcendental flight of the Talmud is its Bajring : * God prays.' " In Christ's 
humanity, united as it is to deity, we have the fact answering to this piece of Talmudio 
poetry. 

B. Its Integrity. We here use the term 'integrity' to signify, not 
merely completeness, but perfection. That which is perfect is, a fortiori^ 
complete in all its parta Ghrist's human nature was : 

( a ) Supematurally conceived ; since the denial of his supernatural con- 
ception involves either a denial of the purity of Mary, his mother, or a denial 
of the truthfulness of Matthew's and Luke's narratives. 

Lake i : 34, 35— "And Maiy said onto the angel, How shall this be^ seeing I know not a aun ? ind the angel 
answered and said oito her, The lolj Spiiil shaU eons iipoB th«% iid Iks poitr tf Ito HmI li^ shaU tv«^^ 



676 CHRISTOLOGY, OR THE DOCTRINE OF REDKMPTIOK. 

The ''80edoftlMvanun"(G«n.3:15)wasone who had no earthly father. '1t«" — Ufe, not only 
as being: the source of physical life to the race, but also as brin^ngr into the world him 
who was to be its spiritual life. Julius MUller, Proof-texts, 29— Jesus Christ ^ had no 
earthly father; his birth was a creative act of God, breaking throusrh the chain of 
human greneration." Domer, Glaubenslchrc, 2:447 (S>'8t. Doot., 3:345)— "The new 
science recognizes manifold methods of propagation, and that too even in one and the 
same species.'* 

Professor Loeb has found that the unfertilized egg of the sea-urohin may be made 
by chemical treatment to produce thrifty young:, and he thinlcs it probable that the 
same effect may be produced among the mammalia. Thus parthenogenesis in the 
highest order of life is placed among the scientific possibilities. Romanes, even while 
he was an agnostic, affirmed that a virgin-birth even in the hiunan race would be by 
no means out of the range of possibility ; see his Darwin and After Darwin, 119, foot • 
note — ** Even if a virgin has ever conceived and borne a son, and even if such a fact in 
the human species has been unique, it would not betoken any breach of physiological 
continuity." Only a new impulse from the Creator could save the Redeemer from the 
long accruing fatalities of human greneration. But the new creation of humanity in 
Christ is scientifically quite as possible as its first creation in Adam ; and in both cases 
there may have been no violation of natural law, but only a unique revelation of its 
possibilities. " Birth from a virgin made it clear that a new thing was taking place in 
the earth, and that One was coming into the world who was not simply man." A. B. 
Bruce : ** Thoroughgoing naturalism excludes the virgin life as well as the virgin birth.** 
Bee Griffith-Jones, Ascent through Christ, 254-270 ; A. H. Strong, Christ in Creation, 176. 

Paul Lobstein, Incarnation of our Lord, 217 — ** That which is unknown to the teach- 
ings of St. Peter and St. Paul, St. John and St. James, and our Lord himself, and is 
absent from the earliest and the latest gospels, cannot be so essential as many people 
have supposed." This argument from silence is sufficiently met by the considerations 
that Mark passes over thirty years of our Lord's life in silence ; that John presupposes 
the narratives of Matthew and of Luke ; that Paul does not deal with the story of Jesus* 
life. The facts were known at first only to Mary and to Joseph ; their very nature 
involved reticence until Jesus was demonstrated to be "tha Son of God with pover .... by the 
nsorreetion from the dead" ( Rom. 1:4); meantime the natural development of Jesus and his 
refusal to set up an earthly kinjrdom may have made the miraculous events of thirty 
years ago seem to Mary like a wonderful dream ; so only gradually the marvellous tale 
of the mother of the Lord found its way into the gospel tradition and creeds of the 
church, and into the inmost hearts of Christians of all countries ; see F. L. Anderson^ in 
Baptist Review and Expositor, 1904 : 25-44, and Machen, on the N. T. Account of the 
3irth of Jesus, in Princeton TheoL Rev.. Oct. 1905, and Jan. 1906. 

Cooke, on The Virgin Birth of our Lord, in Methodist Rev., Nov. 1904 : 849-857—" If 
there is a moral taint in the human race, if in the very blood and constitution of 
humanity there is an ineradicable tendency to sin, then it is utterly inconceivable that 
any one bom in the race by natural means should escape the taint of that race. And« 
finally* if the virgin birth is not historical, then a difficulty greater than any that 
destructive criticism has yet evolved from documents, interpolations, psychological 
improbabilities and unconscious contradictions confronts the reason ard upsets all the 
long results of scientific observation, — that a sinful and deliberately sinning and 
unmarried pair should have given life to the purest human being that ever Uved or of 
whom the human race has ever dreamed, and that he, knowing and forgiving the sins 
of others, never knew the shame of his own origin." See also Gore, Dissertations, 1-68, 
on the Virgin Birth of our Lord, J. Armitage Robinson, Some Thoughts on the Incar- 
nation, 42, both of whom show that without assuming the reality of the virgin birth 
we cannot account for the origin of the narratives of Matthew and of Luke, nor for the 
acceptance of the virgin birth by the early Christians. Per contrOt see Hoben, in Am. 
Jour. Tbeol., 1902 : 473-606, 709-752. For both sides of the controveisy, see Symposium 
by Bacon, Zenos, Rhees and Warfield, in Am. Jour. Theol., Jan. 1906:1-30; and especi- 
ally Orr, Virgin Birth of Christ. 

(b) Free, both from hereditary depravity, and from actual sin; as is 
shown by his never offering sacrifice, never praying for forgiveness, teach- 
ing that all bat he needed the new birth, challenging all to convict him of 
a single sin. 
Jesus frequently went up to the temple, but he never offered saorifloe. He prayed : 



THB TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 677 

'?kther, f««gir*« .am ' ( lake 23 : 34 ) ; but he never prayed : ** Father, forgive me.** He said r 
"Temait be bora anew" (John 3:7); but the words Indicated that he had no such need. ** At 
no moment in ali that life could a single detail have been altered, except for the worse." 
He not only yielded to Ood*8 will when made known to him, but he s^night it : "I seek not 
mine own vill, bnt tke vlll of him that sent me*' (John5:30). The angrer which he showed was no 
passionate or selfish or %'lndictlve anger, but the indignation of righteousness against 
hypocrisy and cruelty —an indigrnation accompanied with grief : "looked round about on them 
vith anger, beingr V^vfiA at the hardening of their heart" ( Mark 3:5). F. W. H. Myers, St. Taul, 19, 63 
—>* Thou with strong prayer and very much entreating Wiliest be asked, and thou wilt 
answer then. Show the hid heart beneath creation beating. Smile with kind eyes and be 

a man with men Yea, through life, death, through sorrow and through sinning. 

He shall suffice me, for he hath sufficed : Christ is the end, for Christ was the beginning, 
Christ the beginning, for the end is Christ.** Not personal experience of sin, but resist- 
ance to it, fitted him to deliver us from it. 

lake 1 :35 — "vherefore also the holj thing whioh is begotten shall be called the Son of God" ; John 8: 46 — 
" Whioh of joa oonrieteth me of lin ?*' 14 : 30 — "the prince of the world cometh : and he hath nothing in me ** = 
not the slightest evil inclination upon which his temptations can lay hold ; Rom. 8 : 3— "in 
theIik«aessof8inftilfleah'*>Binflesh, but without the sin whioh in other men clings to the 
flesh ; 2Cor. 5 : 21 —"Elm who knew no tin" ; leb. 4 : 15— "in all points tempted like u we are^ jet without sin**; 
7 : 26 — "holj, goilelea, nnde&led, separated lirom sinners*' —by the fact of his immaculate concep- 
tion ; 9 : 14— " throogh the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish onto God "; 1 Pet 1 : 19 — "preeioos blood, 
u of a lamb withont blemish and withoat qioty eren the blood of Christ" ; 2 : 22— "who did no sin, netther wu gnils 
Ibnnd in his month"; 1 John 3:5, 7— "in him is no sin .... he is righteooi." 

Julius MUller, Proof -texts, 29 — ^* Had Christ been only human nature, he oould not 
have been without sin. But life can draw out of the putrescent clod materials for Its 
own living. Divine life appropriates the human." Domer, Glaubenslehre, 2 : 446 ( SysL 
Doct., 3:344) — "What with us is regeneration, is with him the incarnation of God.*' 
In this origin of Jesus* sinlessness from his union with God, we see the absurdity, both 
doctrinally and practically, of speaking of an immaculate conception of the Virgin, 
and of making her sinlessness precede that of her Son. On the Roman Catholic doctrine 
of the immaculate conception of the Virgin, see H. B. Smith, System, 389-892 ; Mason, 
Faith of the Gospel, 129-131 — " It makes the regeneration of humanity begin, not with 
Christ, but with the Virgin. It breaks his connection with the race. Instead of spring- 
ing sinless from the sinful race, he derives his humanity from something not like the 
rest of us.*' Thomas Aquinas and Llguori both call Mary the Queen of Mercy, as Jeflus 
her Son is King of Justice ; see Thomas, Pnef . in Sept. Cath. Ep., Comment on Esther, 
5 : 3, and Liguori, Glories of Mary, 1 : 80 ( Dublin version of 1806). Bradford, Heredity, 
289— " The Roman church has almost apotheosized Mary ; but it must not be forgotten 
that the process began with Jesus. From what he was, an inference was drawn oon« 
oeming what his mother must have been.*' 

** Christ took human nature in such a way that this nature, without sin, bore the conse- 
quences of sin." That portion of human nature which the Logos took into union with 
himself was, in the very instant and by the fact of his taking it, purged from all its 
inherent depravity. But if in Christ there was no sin, or tendency to sin, how could he 
be tempted ? In the same way, we reply, that Adam was tempted. Christ was not 
omniscient : Hark 13 : 32 — "of that daj or that hoar knoweth no one^ not eren the angels in hearen, neithar the 
Son, bat the Father." Only at the close of the first temptation does Jesus recognize Satan 
as the adversary of souls: Mat 4: 10— "Get thee hence, Satan." Jesus could be tempted, not 
only because he Was not omniscient, but also because he had the keenest susceptibility 
to all the forms of innocent desire. To these desires temptation may appeal. Sin 
consists, not in these desires, but in the gratification of them out of God's order, and 
contrary to God's will. Meyer : *' Lust is appetite run wild. There is no harm in any 
natural appetite, considered in itself. But appetite has been spoiled by the Fall.** So 
Satan appealed ( Mat 4 : 1-11 ) to our Lord's desire for food, for applause, for power ; to 
**• Ueberglaube, Aberglaude, Unglaube ' ' ( Kurtz ) ; c/. Mat 28 : 39 ; 27 : 42 ; 26 : 53. All temp- 
tation must be addressed cither to desire or fear ; so Christ " was in all points tempted like *i wo 
are" (Eeb.4:15). The first temptation, in the wilderness, was addressed to desire; the 
second, in the garden, was addressed to fear. Satan, after the first, ** departed from him bra 
season" (lake 4: 13); but he returned, in (}ethsemane— "theprineeof the worldoometh: and ha hath 
nothing in me " ( John 14 : 30 ) — if possible, to deter Jesus from his work, by rousing within him 
vast and agonizing fears of the suffering and death that lay before him. Yet, in spite 
of both the desire and the fear with whioh his holy soul was moved, he was " withoat sia" 
( Heh. 4 :i5)^ The tree on the edge of the precipice is fiercely blown by the winds: the 



678 CHRISTOLOOT^ OK THE DOCTRIXB OF RBDEMFTIOH. 



•train apoo the roots to tremeodouc, but the roots hold. Bv«d in Gcthsemsne and oa 
Cklrary. Christ nerer prsjs for fotsfrenflBi, be only imparts tt to othn& See mman, 
SinleasnesB of Jesus; Thomarins. CfarisCi Penoo und Werk, 2:7-17. ]»-IM| espu OB^ Ui; 
Sctiaff, PenoQ of Christ, 51-7S : Sbedd, Dogm. TVeoL. 3 : S»-M0. 



( c ) Ideal hnnum natiiTe, — famishing the monl pattern which num is 
progreesvelj to realize, althongh within limitations of knowledge and of 
actiTity required bj his Tocation as the world's Redeemer. 



Ftala S : 4-8— ^An hsi Mi« kla tefittb Ww tUs G«l isl cravM« kia viik ghvyai 1 
km to ktii itmhm fwr ftt wki rftky kMi» : TWakKtyHan tkiap wmUr kiste**— a deacriplioii of 
the ideal man, which finds its ntOization only in Christ. Itbi 2 : i-l«— " Istwv vtm ailTrt 

aIltkiBSS«k)«toitokia. 1st wtbtWMkia irto talk b>gm—i>>lia*a Www tfaattsMgtl^ wiwaiskiniiMi 
§i\ktwtUia^§i4mAtnwMi^ikg:wfaihKmr ICv.lS : 45— 'TWInl .... kLm . . . . Tkt ImI 
Uut "— impl^ that the second Adam realised the full concept of hnmanitj-, which failed 
to be realized in the first Adam; so t«»49 — **■ wkavtbMsitksiwfVflrtktMitkljCman], vi 
ikiina]Mb«vtktiM««flrtkskMT«l7"[nian]. 2Cv.3:18 — "tkt ghvytftkslvl'* lsthepatt€m,into 
whose likeness we are to be changed. FkiL3:21 — "vktihLlIhiyMaBevtktktijflfMrksBfliibM, 
ikat it aaj ba easfvMd to tk« b«4j tf kis fliv7 ' ; CoL 1 : 18 — *' tka is aU tki^ k« aigkt kavt tks |i»HBBMN " ; 
lPfC2:a— "nfvtdlvjM^lmTi^jfsaamapktkatpikNU fiOavkii Mipi**; IMsS: 3 — "tmyiat 
tkat katk tkit kapt Mt M kia pviietk kuBttl^ CTCB u ka is psm" 

The phrase "SoBflrau'CJakiSir; r/. Ika. 7 : 1^ Com. of Posey, in loeo,and Westoott,in 
Bible Com. on John, 3&-35) seems to intimate that Christ answers to the perfect idea of 
humanity, as it at first existed in the mind of God. Not that he was surpassingly 
beautiful in physical form ; for the only way to reconcile the seemingly conflicting 
Intimations is to suppose that in all outward respects he took our average humanity — 
at one time appearing without form or comeliness (h. 52 : 1 ), and aged before his time 
( Joks 8 : 57— '*Tkoa art sot jat flfty jam aid " ), at another time revealing so much of his inward 
grace and glory that men were attracted and awed ( Pl 45 : 3— **Tkc« art fainr tkas tka akilins 
ofaan"; laka4 :22— "tka worda af gnea wkiek yroeeadei aot af kis mautk"; Mark 10:32— ** Jans vai gaias 
bafora tkan : aod ikaj mn amaiad ; aad tkaj tkat feUavad va« afraid " ; Hal 17 : 1-8 — the account of the 
transfiguration ). Compare the Byzantine pictures of Christ with those of the Italian 
painters, — the former ascetic and emaciated, the latter types of physical well-being. 
Modem pictures make Jesus too exclusively a Jew. Yet there is a certain truth in the 
words of Mozoomdar : ** Jesus was an Oriental, and we Orientals understand him. He 
spoke in figure. We understand him. Ho was a mystic Tou take him literally : yon 
make an Englishman of him.** So Japanese Christians will not swallow the Western 
system of theology, because they say that this would be depriving the world of the 
Japanese view of Christ. 

But in all spiritual respects Christ was perfect. In him are united all the exoeUenoes 
of both the sexes, of all temperaments and nationalities and characters. He possesses, 
not simply passive innocence, but positive and absolute holiness, triumphant through 
temptation. Ho includes in himself all objects and reasons for affection and worship ; 
so that, in loving him, ** love can never love too much.'* Christ's human nature, there- 
fore, and not human nature as it is in us, is the true basis of ethics and of theology. 
This absence of narrow individuality, this ideal, universal manhood, could not have been 
secured by merely natural laws of propagation,— it was secured by Christ's miraculous 
conception ; see Domer, Glaubenslchrc, 2 : 446 ( Syst. Doct.. 3 : 344 ). John G. Whlttier, 
on the Birmingham philanthropist, Joseph Sturge : ** Tender as woman, manliness and 
meekness In him were so allied, That they who Judged him by his strength or weak- 
ness Saw but a single side." 

Soth, Ethical Principles, 430— ** The secret of the power of the moral Ideal is the con- 
viction which it carries with it that it is no rmrc ideal, but the expression of the 
supreme Reality." Bowne, Theory of Thought and Knowledge, 364 — " The a priori 
only outlines a posaihlef and does not determine what shall be actual within the limits 
of the possible. If experience is to bo possible, it must take on certain forms, but those 
rorms arc compatible with an infinite variety of experience." No opriort truths or 
ideals can guarantee Christianity. We want a historical basis, an actual Christ, a 
realiz<UUm of the divine ideal. " Great men," says Amiel, "are the true men.** Yes, 
wo add, but only Christ, the greatest man, shows what the true man is. The heavenly 
perfection of Jesus discloses to us the greatness of our own possible being, while at the 
same time it reveals our infinite shortooming and the source from which all restoration 
must come. 



THE TWO KATUBB8 OF CHRIST, 679 

Gore, Inoarnation, 168 —*' Jesus Christ is the oathollo man. In a sense, all the irreatest 
men have overlapped the iMundaries of their time. * The truly ^reat Have all one a^, 
and from one visible space Shed influence. They, both in power and act Are permanent, 
and time is not with them. Save as it workcth for them, they In it.* But in a unique 
senfie the manhood of Jesus is catholic ; because it is exempt, not from the limitations 
which belong to manhood, but from the limitations which make our manhood narrow 
and isolated, merely local or national.^* Dale, Ephesians, 42 — ** Christ is a servant and 
something more. There is an ease, a freedom, a grace, about his doing the will of God, 
which can belong only to a Son. . . . There is nothing constrained ... he was bom to 
it. ... He does the will of God as a child does the will of Its father, naturally, as a 
matter of course, almost without thought. ... No irreverent familiarity about his 
communion with the Father, but also no trace of toar, or even of wonder. .... 
Prophets had fallen to the ground when the divine glory was revealed to them, but 
Christ stands calm and erect. A subject may lose his self-posseasion in the presence of 
his prince, but not a son.** 

Mason, FeUth of the Gospel, 148 — " What once he had perceived, he thenceforth knew. 
He had no opinions, no conjectures ; we are never told that he forgot, nor even that 
he remembered, which would imply a degree of forgetting; we are not told that he 
arrived at truths by the process of reasoning them out ; but he reasons them out for 
others. It is not recorded that he took counsel or formed plans ; but he desired, and 
he purposed, and he did one thing with a view to another." On Christ, as the ideal man, 
see Griffith-Jones, Ascent through Christ, 807-838 ; F. W. Robertson, Sermon on The 
Glory of the Divine Son, 2nd Series, Sermon XIX; Wilberforoe, Incarnation, 22-4)8; 
Bbrard, Dogmatlk, 2 : 25 ; Moorhouse, Nature and Revelation, 87 ; Tennyson, Introduc- 
tion to In Mcmorlam ; Farrar, Life of Christ, 1 : 148-154, and 2 : excursus iv ; Bushnell, 
Nature and the Supernatural, 278-882 ; Thomas Hughes, The Manliness of Christ ; Hop- 
kins, Scriptural Idea of Man, 121-146; Tyler, in Bib. Sac, 22:51, 620 ; Domer, Glaubens- 
lehre, 2 : 451 sg. 

(d) A hnman natnre that found its personality only in nnion with the 
divine naturo, — in other words, a human natnre impersonal, in the sense 
that it had no x>ersonality separate from the divine nature, and prior to its 
nnion therewith. 

By the Impersonality of Christ*8 human nature, we mean only that it had no person- 
ality before Christ took it, no personality before its union with the divine. It was a 
human nature whose consciousness and will were developed only in union with the 
personality of the Logos. The Fathers therefore rejected the word Awwoaraffla^ and 
substituted the word eyvno<rr<uria^ — they favored not uupersonality but inpersonality. 
In still plainer terms, the Logos did not take into union with himself an already devel- 
oped human person, such as James, Peter, or John, but human nature before it had 
become personal or was capable of receiving a name. It reached its personality only 
in union with his own divine nature. Therefore we see in Christ not two persons— a 
human person and a divine person — but one person, and that person possessed of a 
human nature as well as of a divine. For proof of this, see pages 688-700, also Shedd, 
Dogm. Theol., 2 : 288-308. 

Mason, Faith of the Gospel, 188— ** We count it no defect in our bodies that they have 
no personal subsistence apart from ourselves, and that, if separated from ourselves, they 
are nothing. They share in a true personal lite because we, whose bodies they are, are 
persons. What happens to them happens to us." In a similar manner the personality 
of the Logos furnished the organizing principle of Jesus* two-fold nature. As he 
looked backward he could see himself dwelling in eternity with Ctod, so far as his 
divine nature was concerned. But as respects his humanity he could remember that it 
was not eternal,— it had had its beginnings in time. Yet this humanity had never had 
a separate personal existence,- its personality had been developed only in connection 
with the divine nature. GdscheL, quoted in Dorner's Person of Christ, 5 : 170 — ** Christ 
fo humanity ; we have it ; he is it entirely ; we participate therein. His personality 
precedes and lies at the basis of the personality of the race and its individuals. As idea, 
he is implanted in the whole of humanity ; he lies at the basis of every human con- 
sciousness, without however attaining realization in an individual ; for this is only 
possible in the entire race at the end of the times." 

Emma Marie Caillard, on Man in the Light of Evolution, in Contemp. Rev., Dec. 1808 : 
879^1 •* '* Christ is not only the goal of the race which is to bo conformed to him, but 



680 CHBISTOLOGY, OR TUE DOCTRINE OF REDEMPTION. 

he is also the vital principle which moulds each individual of that race into its own 
similitude. The perfect type exists potentially throu«^h all the intermediate staces by 
which it is more and more nearly approached, and, if it did not exist, neither oould 
they. There oould be no derelopment of an absent life. The gotd of man's evolution, 
the perfect type of manhood, is Christ. He exists and always has existed potentially 
in the race and in the indi\'idual. equally before as after his visible incarnation, equally 
in the millions of those who do not, as in the far fewer millions of those who do, bear 
his name. In the strictest sense of the words, he is the life of man, and that In a far 
deeper and more intimate sense than he can be said to be the life of the universe.** 
Dale, Christian Fellowship, 150 — '* Christ's incarnation was not an isolated and abnor- 
mal wonder. It was God^s witness to the true and ideal relation of all men to God.** 
The incarnation was no detached event,— it was the issue of an eternal process of utters 
ance on the part of the Word "whose goingi forth an btm of old, from eToiudag " ( Huith 5 : S ). 

( 6 ) A hninan natnre germiDal, and capable of self-oommnnication, — 
80 constituting him the spiritual head and beginning of a new race, the 
second Adam from whom fallen man individually and collectively derives 
new and holy life. 



In U 9 : 6, Christ is called "IrerUikiiig rather." In Ii. 53 :10, it is said that "haihallMe Ui i 
In Hot. 22: 16, he calls himself ** the root" as well as "theoffquingoflkTid." See also John 5: 21^ 
** the Son alio i^reth life to vhom he vill"; 15:1 — "I am the true me '* — whose roots are planted in 
heaven, not on earth ; the vine-man, from whom as its stock the new life of humanity 
is to spring, and into whom the half-withered branches of the old humanity are to be 
lirafted that they may have life divine. See Trench, Sermon on Christ, the True Vine, 
in Ilulsean Lectures. John 17 : 2 — " thou garect him anthoritj over all fleah, that to all whom thoa halt giTW 
him, he should i^to eternal life " ; 1 Cor. 15 : 45 — " the last idam benme a lifo-giTing spirit " — hero " spirit " = 
not the Holy Spirit, nor Christ's divine nature, but '' the ego of his total divine-human 
personality." 

Bph. 5 : 23 — " Christ also is the head of the choroh " = the head to which all the members are united, 
and from which they derive life and power. Christ calls the disciples his "little ohildm" 
( John 13 : 33 ) ; when he leaves them they are " orphans " ( 14 : 18 marg. ). ** He represents him- 
self as a father of children, no loss than as a brother ** ( 20 : 17— " mj hrethren " ; c/. Hebw 8 : 11 

— " brethren ", and 13 — "Behold, I and the children vhon God hath giren me " ; see Wcstcott, Com. on John 
13 : 33 ). The new race Is propasrated after the analogy of the old ; the first Adam is the 
source of the physical, the second Adam of spiritual, life ; the first Adam the source 
of corruption, the second of holiness. Hence John 12 : 24 — " if it die, it beareth mnoh firuit" ; Mat 
10 : 37 and Luke 14 : 28 — " He that loTeth fiither or mother more than me is not vorthj of me "= none is worthy 
of me, who prefers his old natural ancestry to his new spiritual descent and relationship. 
Thus Christ is not Sim ply the noblest embodiment of the old humanity, but also the 
fountain-head and beginning of a new humanity, the new source of life for the race. 
C;f.lTim.2:15 — " she shall be sared through the ehild-bearing " — which brou«rht Christ Into the 
world. See Wilberf orce, Incarnation, 227-241 ; Baird, Elohlm Revealed, 638-664 ; Domer, 
Glaubenslehro, 2 : 461 sq, ( Syst. Doct., 3 : 349 sq.), 

Liffbtf oot on Col. 1 : 18 — " who is the beginning, the ftnt firuits from the dead " — ** Here apx^ — L pri- 
ority in time. Christ was first fruits of the dead ( 1 Cor. 15 : 20, 23 ) ; 2. ori«rinatinsr power, 
not only princijyium jtrincipiatum, but also j>rinci'j>ium principiann, AaheU first with 
respect to the universe, so he becomes first with resiwct to the church ; c/. Heb. 7 : 15, 16— 
'another priest, who hath been made, not after the lav of a o&mal oonunandment. but after the power of an endlsH 
lifiB '.'* Pau 1 teaches that "the head of everj man is Christ " ( 1 Cor. 11 : 3 ), and that " in him dwelloth all 
the fulness of the Godhead bodilj " ( Col 2 : 9 ). Whiton, Gloria Patrl, 88-92, remarks on Bph. 1 : 10, 
that Ood's pun^ose is " to sum up all things in Christ, the things in the hearens, and the things upon the earth " 

— to bring all thinf<s to a head ( avaKe«i>aXaiuKraa9ai ). History is a perpetually increasing 
incarnation of life, whose climax and crown is the divine fulness of life in Christ. In 
him the before unconscious sonship of the world awakes to consciousness of the Father. 
He is worthiest to bear the name of the Son of God, in a preeminent, but not exclusive 
right. Wo agree with these words of Whiton, if they mean that Christ is the only giver 
of life to man as he Is the only giver of life to the universe. 

Hence Christ is the only ultimate authority in religion. He reveals himself in nature, 
in man, in history, in Scripture, but each of these is only a mirror which reflects him 
to us. In each case the mirror is more or less blurred and tlie image obscured, sret HB 
appears In the mirror notwithstanding. The mirror is useless unless there is an eye to 
look into it, and an object to be seen in it. The Holy Spirit gives the eyesighti while 




THB TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 681 

Ohrist himself, llvlxifir and present, furnishes the object ( Jums 1 : 23-25 ; S Oar. 3 : 18 ; 1 Cor. 13 : 12). 

Over a^nst mankind is Christ-kind ; over against the fallen and sinful race is the 
new race created by Christ's indwelling. Therefore only when he ascended with his 
perfected manhood could he send the Holy Spirit, for the Holy Spirit which makes men 
children of God is the Spirit of Christ. Christy humanity now, by virtue of its perfect 
union with Deity, has become imiversally communicable. It is as consonant with evo- 
lution to derive spiritual gifts from the second Adam, a solitary source, as it is to 
derive the natural man from the first Adam, a solitary source ; see George Harris, 
Moral Evolution, 409 ; and A. H. Strong, Christ in Creation, 174 

Simon, Reconciliation, 808 — ** Every man is in a true sense essentially of divine 

nature— even as Paul teaches, ^lof yivot (lets 17: 29) At the centre, as it were, 

enswathed in fold after fold, after the manner of a bulb, we discern the living divine 
spark, impressing us qualitatively if not quantitatively, with the absoluteness of the 
great sun to which it belongs." The idea of truth, beauty, right, has in it an absolute 
and divine quality. It comes from God, yet from the depths of our own nature. It is 
the evidence that Christ, "tlM light thAtUghteth ereiy au " (John 1 : 9 ), is present and is working 
within us. 

Pfleiderer, Philos. of Religion, 1 : 272— " That the divine idea of man as 'ths son of his 
lore ' ( CoL 1 : 13 ), and of humanity as the kingdom of this Son of God, is the immanent 
final cause of all existence and development even in the prior world of nature, this has 
been the fundamental thought of the Christian Gnosis since the apostolic age, and I 
think that no philosophy has yet been able to shake or to surpass this thouqrht— the 
comer stone of an idealistic view of the world.*' But Mead, Ritschl's Place in the His- 
tory of Doctrine, 10, says of Pfleiderer and Ritschl : " Both recognize Christ as morally 
pi^rfect and as the head of the Christian Church. Both deny his pre-existenoe and 
his essential Deity. Both reject the traditional conception of Christ as an atoning 
Redeemer. Ritschl calls Christ God, though inconsistently ; Pfleiderer declines to say 
one thing when he seems to mean another." 

The passages here alluded to abundantly confute the Docetio denial of 
Christ's veritable human body, and the Apollinarian denial of Christ's ver- 
itable human souL More than this, they establish the reality and integrity 
of Christ's human nature, as possessed of all the elements, faculties, and 
powers essential to humanity. 

2. The Deity of Christ 

The reality and integrity of Christ's divine nature have been sufficiently 
proved in a former chapter (see pages 305-315). We need only refer to 
the evidence there feiven, that, during his earthly ministry, Christ : 

( a ) Possessed a knowledge of his own deity. 

John 3 : 13 — " the Son of num, who is in heaTon ** — a passage with clearly indicates Christ's con- 
sciousness, at certain times in his earthly life at least, that he was not confined to earth 
but was also in heaven [ here, however, Westcott and Hort, with K and B, omit 6 iiv iv 
rtp ovpai'ip ; for advocacy of the common reading, see Broadus, in Hovcy's Com. on John 
3 : 13 ] ; 8 : 58— ** Man ibnhun wu born, I am " — here Jesus declares that there is a respect in 
which the idea of birth and beginning does not apply to him, but in which he can apply 
to himself the name " I am " of the eternal God ; 14 : 9, 10 — " Hare I bean so long time with 70a, and 
doit then not know m^ Philip? he that hath aeen me hath aeen the Father; how eajeet thou, Show u the Father? 
BelieTott thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me ? '* 

Adamson, The Mind in Christ, 04-49, gives the following instances of Jesus* super- 
natural knowledge: L Jesus' knowledgre of Peter (John 1:42); S. his finding of Philip 
( 1 : 43 ) ; 8. his recognition of Nathanael ( 1 : 47-50 ) ; 4. of the woman of Samaria ( 4 : 17-19, 39 ) ; 
6. miraculous draughts of fishes ( Lake 5:6-9; John 21 : 6 ) ; 6. death of Lazarus ( John 11 : 14 ) ; 7. 
of the ass's colt (Mat. 21:2); 8. of the upper room ( Mark 14 : 15 ) ; 9. of Peter's denial (Lit 
26 : 34 ) ; 10. of the manner of his own death ( John 12 : 33 ; 18 : 32) ; IL of the manner of Peter's 
death ( John 21 : 19 ); 12. of the fall of Jerusalem ( Mat. 24 : 2 ). 

Jesus does not say " our Father " but •' my Father " ( John 20 : 17 ). Rejection of him is a 
greater sin than rejection of the prophets, because he is the "beloved Son" of God (Lake 
20 : 13 ). He knows God's purposes better than the angels, because he is the Son of God 
( Mark 18 :32). As Son of (jk>d, ae alone ki'ows, and he alone can reveal, the Father ( Mat. 



682 CHRISTOLOGY, OK THE DOCTRINE OF REDEMPTION. 

11 : 27 ). There is clearly somethln^r more In his Souship than In that of his dlsdples ( Joha 
1:14 — "onljbagottai"; H«b.l:6— *'fintlMgott«n"). See Chapman, Jesus Christ and the Pretent 
Age, 37 ; Benney, Studios in Theology, 83. « 

(6) ExeroiBed divine powers and prerogatiyes. 

John 2:24, 25 — " Bvt Janu did not trnst himielf onto tlMm, for that he kn«v all m«n, and beouM h« iMd«d nek 
that anj one ihoold bear witnasa oonoeming nun ; for he hinuelf knew what mi in man " ; 18 :4 — "Jens thvelon^ 
knowing all the things that were ooming upon him, went forth" ; Mark 4 : 39 — "he awoke, and rebuked the wind, 
and said onto the sea, Peaee, be still And the wind eeased, and there wu a great ealm" ; Vat. 9: 6— "Bat that ye 
maj know that the Son of man hath anthoritj on earth to fergire sins ( then saith he to the dok of the palqr ). Arise, and 
take np th J bed, and go onto thj hoose " ; Mark 2 : 7— "Hij doth this man thus speak? he blasphenwth: who esa 
forglTe sins bat one, eren God ? '* 

It is not enough to keep, like Alexander Sevenis, a bust of Christ, in a private chapeU 
along with Virgil, Orpheus, Abraham, Apollonius, and other persons of the same kind ; 
see Gibbon, Decline and Fall, chap. z\i. ** Christ Is all in all. The prince in the Arabian 
story took from a walnut-shell a miniature tent, but that tent expanded so as to cover, 
first himself, then his palace, then his army, and at last his whole kingdom. So Christ's 
being and authority expand, as we reflect upon them, until they take In, not only our- 
selves, our homes and our country, but the whole world of sinning and suffering men, 
and the whole universe of Qod " ; see A. H. Strong, Address at the Ecumenical Miasion- 
ary Conference, April 23, 1900. 

Matheson, Voices of the Spirit, 39 — " What Is that law which I call gravitation, but 
the sign of the Son of man in heaven ? It is the gospel of self -surrender in nature. 
It is the Inability of any world to be its own centre, the neoeasity of every world to 
oentcr In something else. ... In the firmament as on the earth, the many are made one 
by giving the one for the many.*' *' Subtlest thought shall fail and learning falter; 
Churches change, forms perish, systems go ; But our human needs, they will not alter, 
Christ no after age will e'er outgrow. Yea, amen, O changeless One, thou only Art 
life's guide and spiritual goal; Thou the light across the dark vale lonely. Thou the 
eternal haven of the soul." 

But this is to say, in other words, that there were, in Christ, a knowl- 
edge and a power such as belong only to God. The passages cited furnish 
a refutation of both the Ebionite denial of the reality, and the Arian denial 
of the integrity, of the divine nature in Christ. 

Napoleon to Count Montholon ( Bertrand's Memoirs ) : '* I think I understand some- 
what of human nature, and I tell you all these [ heroes of antiquity ] were men, and I 
am a man ; but not one Is like him : Jesus Christ was more than man." See other 
testimonies in Schaff, Person of Christ. Even Spinoza, Tract. Theol.-Pol., cap. 1 ( voL 
1 : 383), says that " Christ communed with God, mind to mind .... this spiritual close- 
ness is unique " ( Martineau, Types, 1 : 254), and Channing speaks of Christ as more than 
a human being,— as having exhibited a spotless purity which is the highest distinction 
of heaven. F. W. Kol>ertson has called attention to the fact that the phrase "Son of 
nun " ( John 5 : 27 ; c/. Duu 7 : 13 ) itself implies that Christ was more than man ; it would have 
been an impertinence for him to have proclaimed himself Son of man, unless he had 
claimed to be something more; could not every human being call himself the same ? 
When one takes this for his characteristic designation, as Jesus did, he implies that there 
Is something strange in bis being Son of man ; that this is not his original condition and 
dignity ; in other words, that he is also Son of Qod. 

It corroborates the argument from Scripture, to find that Christian experience 
Instinctively recognizes Christ's Godhead, and that Christian history shows a new con- 
ception of the dignity of childhood and of womanhood, of the sacredness of human life, 
and of the value of a human soul,— all arising from the belief that, in Christ, the God- 
head honored human nature by taking it into perpetual union with Itself, by bearing 
its guilt and punishment, and by raising it up from the dishonors of the grave to the 
glory of heaven. We need both the humanity and the deity of Christ ; the humanity, 
— for, as Michael Angelo's Last Judgment witnesses, the ages that neglect Christ's 
humanity must have some human advocate and Savior, and find a poor substitute for 
the ever-present Christ in Mariolatry, the Invocation of the saints, and the *real pres- 
ence ' of the wafer and the mass ; the deity, — for, unless Christ is God, he cannot offer 
an infinite atonement for us, nor bring about a real union between our souls and the 



THE TWO NATURES IK ONE PERSON. 683 

Father. Dorner, Glaubenalehre, 2 : 825-3S7 ( Syst. Doot^ 8 : 321-228 ) — *' Mary and the saints 
took Christ's place as intercessors in heaven ; transubstantiation furnished a present 
Christ on earth." It might almost be said that Mary was made a fourth person In the 
Gk)dhead. 

Hamack, Das Wesen des Christenthums : '* It is no paradox, and neither is it ration- 
alism, but the simple expression of the actual position as it lies before us in the gospels : 
Not the Son, but the Father alone, has a place In the gospel as Jesus proclaimed it " ; 
i. e., Jesus has no place, authority, supremacy, in the gosi^el,— the gospel is a Christian- 
ity without Christ ; see Nieoll, The Church's One Foundation, 48. And this in the f^ico 
of Jesus* own words: "Corns onto me" (Mat. 11:28); "theSonof mui .... liull lit on the thnme of his 
glory: uid befiin kin ihallbogithend all tkoBittioBi" (Mat 25:81,82); "he that hath mwbm hath Men the Fathor" 
(John 14:9); ** he that obeyeth not the Son shall not Me lift, but the vnth of God abideth oa him" (John 8: 36). 
Loisy, The Gospel and the Church, adyocatee the nut-theory in distinction from the 
onion-theory of doctrine. Does the fourth gospel appear a second century produc- 
tion? What of it? There is an evolution of doctrine as to Christ. *' Hamack does not 
conceive of Christianity as a seed, at first a plant in potentiality, then a real plant, 
identical from the beginning of its evolution to the final limit, and from the root to 
the summit of the stem. He conceives of It rather as a fruit ripe, or over ripe, that 
must be peeled to reach the incorruptible kernel, and he peels his fruit so thoroughly 
that little remains at the end.** R. W. Gilder : " If Jesus is a man. And only a man, I 
say That of all mankind I will cleave to him. And will cleave alway. If Jesus Christ is 
a God, And the only Gk>d, I swear I will follow him through heaven and hell. The earth, 
the sea, and the air.*' 

On Christ manifested in Nature, see Jonathan Edwards, Observations on Trinity, ed. 
Smyth, 9&-97 — ** He who, by his immediate influence, gives being every moment, and 
by his Spirit actuates the world, because he inclines to communicate himself and his 
excellencies, doth doubtless communicate his excellency to bodies, as far as there Is any 
consent or analogy. And the beauty of face and sweet airs in men are not always the 
effect of the corresponding excellencies of the mind ; yet the beauties of nature are 
really emanations or shadows of the exooUencies of the Son of Gkxl. So that, when we 
are delighted with flowery meadows and gentle breezes of wind, we may consider that 
we see only the emanations of the sweet benevolence of Jesus Christ. When we behold 
the fragrant rose and lily, we see his love and purity. So the green trees and fields, and 
singing of birds, are the emanations of his infinite Joy and benignity. The easiness and 
naturalness of trees and vines are shadows of his beauty and loveliness. The crystal 
rivers and murmuring streams are the footsteps of his favor, grace and beauty. When 
we behold the light and brightness of the sun, the golden edges of an evening cloud, or 
the beauteous bow, we behold the adumbrations of his glory and goodness, and in the 
blue sky, of his mildness and gentleness. There are also many things wherein we may 
behold his awful majesty : in the sun in his strength, in comets, in thunder, in the 
hovering thunder clouds, in ragged rocks and the brows of mountains. That beau- 
teous light wherewith the world is filled in a clear day is a lively shadow of his spotless 
holiness, and happiness and delight in communicating himself. And doubtless this is a 
reason why Christ is compared so often to these things, and called by their names, as 
the Sun of Righteousness, the Morning Star, the Rose of Sharon, and Lily of the Valley, 
the apple tree among trees of the wood, a bundle of myrrh, a roe, or a young hart. By 
this we may discover the beauty of many of those metaphors and similes which to an 
unphilosophical person do seem so uncouth. In like manner, when we behold the 
beauty of man's body in its perfection, we still see like emanations of Clhrist^s divine 
perfections, although they do not always flow from the mental excellencies of the person 
that has them. But we see the most proper image of the beauty of Christ when we 
see beauty in the human souL*' 

On the deity of CJhrist, see Shedd, History of Doctrine, 1:262, 851 ; Llddon, Our Lord's 
Divinity, 137, 207, 468 ; Thomasius, ChristI Person und Werk, 1:81-64; Hovey, God with 
Us, 17-23 ; Bengel on John 10 : 80. On the two natures of Christ, see A. H. Strong, Philoso- 
phy and Religion, 201-218. 

nX The Union of the two Natures in one Person. 

Distin(^y as the Soriptnres represent Jesns Christ to have been posseseed 
of a divine nature and of a human nature, each unaltered in essence and 
nndivested of its normal attributes and powers, they with equal distinctness 



684 CHRISTOLCBY, OR THE DOCTRINE OF REDEMPTION. 

represent Jesus Christ as a single tindiyided personality in whom these two 
natures are vitally and inseparably united, so that he is properly, not God 
and man, but the God-man. The two natures are bound together, not by 
the moral tie of friendship, nor by the spiritual tie which links the believer 
to his Lord, but by a bond unique ajid inscrutable, which constitutes them 
one person with a single consciousness and will, — this consciousness and 
wiU including within their possible range both the human nature and the 
divine. 

Whlton, Gloria Patrl, 79-81, would give up speaking of the union of Gtod and man ; 
for this, he says, involves the fallacy of two natures. He would speak rather of the 
manifestation of Qod in man. The ordinary Unitarian insists that Christ was ** a mere 
man." As if there could be such a thing as mere man, exclusive of aught above him 
and beyond him^ self-centered and self-moved. We can sympathize with Whiton's 
objection to the phrase **God and man/' because of its implication of an imperfect 
union. But we prefer the term ** God-man " to the phrase ** God in man," for the 
reason that this latter phrase might equally describe the union of Christ with every 
believer. Christ is ** the only begotten," in a sense that every believer is not. Yet we 
can also sympathize with Dean Stanley, Life and Letters, 1 : 115 — ** Alas that a Church 
that has so divine a service should keep its long list of Articles I I am strengthened 
more than ever in my opinion that there is only needed, that there only should be, one, 
viz^ * 1 believe that Christ is both Qod and man.' " 

1. Proof of this Union, 

(a) Christ uniformly speaks of himself, and is spoken of, as a single 
person. There is no interchange of * I ' and * thou ' between the human 
and the divine natures, such as we find between the persons of the Trinity 
( John 17 : 23 ). Christ never uses the plural number in referring to him- 
self, unless it be in John 3 : 11 — ** we speak that we do know," — and even 
here ** we" is more probably used as inclusive of the disciples. 1 John 
4:2 — ** is come in the flesh " — is supplemented by John 1 : 14 — " became 
flesh" ; and these texts together assure us that Christ so came in human 
nature as to make that nature an element in his single personality. 

Jolin 17 : 23 — "I in them, and thon in me, tiiat Uiey nuj be perfeoted into one ; Uuit the vorld nuy know that thoa 
lidst send me, and loTedst them, eren u thou loTedst me " ; 3 : 11 — " We spaak that which we know, and bear wxtaeit of 
that which we have leen ; and je reeeiTe not our witness " ; 1 John 4:2 — " erery spirit that oonfeaaeth that Jasns Oiriit 
iseomein the flesh is of God" ; John i : 14 — "ind the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us" .• he so came in 
human nature that human nature and himself formed, not two persons, but one person. 

In the Trinity, the Father is objective to the Son, the Son to the Father, and both to 
the Spirit. But Christ's divinity- is never objective to his humanity, nor his humanity 
to his divinity. Moberly, Atonement and Personality, 97 — *• He is not so much God 
and man, as God in, and. throtigh, and as man. He is one indivisible personality througrh- 

out We are to study the divine in and through the human. By looking for the 

divine side by side with the human, instead of discerning the divine within the human, 
we miss the significance of them both.*' We mistake when we say that certain words 
of Jesus with regard to his ignorance of the day of the end ( Mark 13 : 32 ) were spoken by 
his human nature, while certain other words with regard to his being in heaven at the 
same time that he was on earth (John 3 : 13 ) were spoken by his divine nature. There was 
never any separation of the human from the divine, or of the divine from the human, 
—all Christ's 'jrords were spoken, and all Christ's deeds were done, by the one person, 
the God-man. See Forrest, The Authority of Christ, 4»-100, 

(6) The attributes and powers of both natures are asoribed to the one 
Christ, and conversely the works said dignities of the one Ohrist are 
ascribed to either of the natures, in a way inexplicable, except upon the 
principle that these two natures are organically and indissolubly united in 
a single person ( examples of the former usage are Bom. 1 : -3 and 1 Pet. 



THE TWO KATURES IK ONE PERSON. 686 

8 : 18 ; of the latter, 1 Tim. 2 : 5 and Heb. 1 : 2, 3 ). Hence we can say, 
on the one hand, that the Ood-mau existed before Abraham, yet was born 
in the reign of Angustns C8E)sar, and that Jesus Christ wept, was weary, 
sofifered, died, yet is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever ; on the other 
hand, that a divine Savior redeemed us upon the cross, and that the human 
Christ is present with his people even to the end of the world ( Eph. 1 : 23 ; 
4:10; Mat 28: 20). 

Eont 1 : 3 — ** hif Son. vlM iru bora of tk« Med of fitTid uoordiBg (0 tk« flflik '^ 1 M 8 : 18 -- ''Gb^ 
for uni onoe .... bomg put to death in tlie fleeh, bat nude alive in the ipirit" ; 1 Tint 2 : 5 — "one mediator alio 
between God and men, himaelf man, Christ Jenu" ; Eeb. 1 : 2; 3 — "his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things 
.... who being the effnlgenoe of his glory .... when he had made pnrilhtation of sin% sat down on the right hand 
oftheMajestjonhigh"; Eph. 1 : 22, 23 — *" pat all things in snbjeotioa onder his foet» and gate him to be head over 
all things to the church, which is his bodjj the fulness of him that flllelhaU in aU"; 4:10- "le that deeeaoded U the 
same also that ascended far abore aU the hearens, that he mi^^ flU all things" ; Mat 28:20 — "lo, I am with yea 
always, eren onto the end of the world.*' 

Mason, Faith of the Gospel, 142-145— ** Mary was Theotokos, but she was not the 
mother of Christ's Godhood. but of his humanity. We speak of the blood of God the 
Son, but It is not as God that he has blood. The hands of the babe Jesus made the 
worlds, only in the sense that ho whose hands they were was the Aarent in creation. . • 
• . Spirit and body in us are not merely put side by side, and insulated from each other. 
The spirit does not have the rheumatism, and the reverent body does not commune 
with God. The reason why they affect each other is because they are equally ours. . • 
. . Let us avoid sensuous, fondling, modes of addressingr Christ — modes which dishonor 

him and enfeeble the soul of the worshiper Let us also avoid, on the other hand« 

puch phrases as * the dying God ', which loses the manhood in the Godhead." Charles 
H. Spurgeon remarked that people who " dear " everybody reminded him of the woman 
who said she had been reading In " dear Hebrews.'* 

(c) The constant Scriptural representations of the infinite value of 
Christ's atonement and of the union of the human race with God which 
has been secured in him are intelligible only when Ohrist is regarded, not 
as a man of God, but as the God-man, in whom the two natures are so 
united that what each does has the value of both. 

1 John 2 : 2 — "he is the prQ|utiation for oar sins; and not for oars only, bat alio for the whole world," — as John 
In his gospel proves that Jesus Is the Son of God, the Word, God, so in his first Spistle 
he proves that the Son of God, the Word, God, has become man ; Iph. 2 : 16-18— " might recon- 
cile them both [Jew and Gentilel in one body onto God throngh the eross, baring slain ^ oimity thereby ; and 
he came and preached peace to joa that were &r olt^ and peace to them that were nigh : for throogh him we both hare 
oar access in one Spirit nnto the Father " ; 21, 22 — ** in whom each seTeral building, fitly framed togethei; groweth into 
a holj temple in the Lord ; in whom je also are bailded together for a habitation of God in the Spirit '* ; 2 Pet. 1 : 4-^ 
** that throogh these [promises! je may become partakers of the dlTine natorei" John Calrd, Fund. Ideas 
of Christianity, 2:107— ** We cannot separate Christ's divine from his human acta, 
without rending In twain the unity of Ills person and life." 

(d) It corroborates this view to remember that the universal Christian 
consciousness recognizes in Ohrist a single and undivided personality, and 
expresses this recognition in its services of song and prayer. 

The foregoing proof of the union of a perfect human nature and of a 
perfect divine nature in the single person of Jesus Christ suffices to refute 
both the Nestorian separation of the natures and the Eutychian confound* 
ing of them. Certain modem forms of stating the doctrine of this union, 
however — forms of statement into which there enter some of the miscon* 
ceptions already noticed — need a brief examination, before we proceed to 
our own attempt at elucidation. 

Domer, Glaubenslehre, 2 : 4D3-411 ( Syst Doct., 8 : 800-606 ) — '' Three ideas are included 
in incarnation : ( 1) aasumption of human nature on the part of the Logos ( Eeb. 2 : 14— 



686 CHRI8T0L00Y, OB THB DOCTRINE OF REDEMPTIOK. 




'pvlMkof . . . . liAuiUood^ 2ar.5:19— 'M vuiB(krift^ (US:9— 'iaUadwdMk^ 
tke 6«db«d bodilj* ) ; ( 2 ) new creation of the second Adam, by the Holy Ghost and power 
of the Hi£rhest(EoiiL5:14— 'idam'itraugreKioB, vlioifAfl{^u«ofkimtt«lvutooaB0';lC^^ 
inidABaUdM,MalMiB(kristikaUaUbcaidtiiiTd^l5:45 — *1WlnlBAaidAabMUMAUTiag^ IWlMk 
AdaM b«eaBM a lifr-giTiBg Splril ' ; Luke 1 : 85 — ' tk« lolj Spirit ikaU oom «;« th«e, and Od pover rf tkt l«rt ligk 
ikaUongrAadowtkM';Iati:20 — 'tkatvhiGhisooDonTtdinbirisoftk«Idj8pml'); (8) beoomlncrflesh, 
without contraction of deity or humanity (1 Tim. 8 : 16— ' vhe iru iMnifwiid ii tka UA * ; i Jokm 
4 : 8 — * Jan (krift is MBt in tte flMk ' ; Joka 6 : 41, 51 — * I am tke bmd vluflk «aau dovA ool rf kaavai . . . . I ^ 
tktUTin«;braad'; 8John7— 'JamtChriateoattkiB tkaftMk'; John 1: 14 —'tka Word oaoaiM Ink*). Thisiaat 
text cannot mean : The Logos ceased to be what he was, and began to be only man. 
Nor can it be a mere theophany, in human form. The reality of the humanity is inti- 
mated, as well as the reality of the Logos.** 

The Lutherans hold to a communion of the natures, as well as to an impartatlon of 
their properties : ( 1 ) genus idiomaticum ■• Impartatlon of attributes of both natures to 
the one person ; ( 2 ) genus apotelesmtUicum ( from •iroTcAco-^a, *■ that which is finished or 
completed,* i. e., Jesus* work) —attributes of the one person imparted to each of the 
constituent natures. Hence Mary may be called ** the mother of G od,** as the Chalcedon 
symbol declares, *' as to his humanity,** and what each nature did has the value of both ; 
( 8 ) genus majestaticum — attributes of one nature imparted to the other, yet so that the 
divine nature imparts to the human, not the human to the divine. The Lutherans do 
not believe In a genus tapeinoticon, i. e., that the human elements communicated them- 
selves to the divine. The only communication of the human was to the person, not to 
the divine nature, of the God-man. Examples of this third genus majestaticum are 
foundin Jolui8:13 — ''nooiiahathaae«nd6dintokaaTan,lnitlMthal daaoended oat of kaaTn, eran tka Sonrfaua 
who is in haaroa" Lhere, however, Weetcott and Hort, with K and B, omit 6 iv iv r<p ovparf] ; 
6 : 27 — " ha gata kim aatkoritj to axaoate jndgnan^ beoansa ha is a son of dan." Of the explanation that 
this is the figure of speech called ** aUoBosis^** Luther says : " AUamis est larva quaodam 
diaboll, secundum cujus rationes ego certe nolim esse Christian us.'* 

The genus majestatieum is denied by the Reformed Church, on the ground that it does 
not permit a clear distinction of the natures. And this is one great difference between 
it and the Lutheran Church. So Hooker, in commenting upon the Son of man's 
** ascending up where he was before," says : *' By the 'Son of man * must be meant the whole 
person of Christ, who, being man upon earth, filled heaven with his glorious presence ; 
but not according to that nature for which the title of man is given him.'* For the 
Lutheran view of this union and its results in the communion of natures, see Hase, 
Hutterus Kedlvlvus, 11th ed., 195-197; Thomasius, Christ! Person und Wcrk, 2 : 24, 2Sw 
For the Reformed view, see Turretin, loc. 18, queest. 8 ; Hodge, Syst. Theol., 2 : 887-897, 
d07>418. 

2. Modem misrepresentations of this Union, 

A. Theory of an incomplete humanity. — Gess and Beeoher hold that 
the immaterial part in Christ's humanity is only contracted and meta- 
inorx)hosed deity. 

The advocates of this view maintain that the divine Logos reduced him- 
self to the condition and limits of human nature, and thus literally became 
a human souL The theory differs from ApoUinarianism, in that it does not 
necessarily presuppose a trichotomous view of man*s nature. While 
ApoUinarianism, however, denied the human origin only of Christ's nvevfta^ 
this tlieory extends the denial to his entire immaterial being, — his body 
alone being derived from the Virgin. It is held, in slightly varying forms, 
by the Germans, Hofmann and Ebrard, as well as by Gess ; and Henzy 
Ward Beecher was its chief representative in America. 

Gess holds that Christ gave up his eternal holiness and divine self -consciousness, to 
become man, so that he never during his earthly life thought, spoke, or wrought as Ood, 
but was at all times destitute of divine attributes. See Qess, Scripture Doctrine of the 
Person of Christ ; and synopsis of his view, by Reubelt, in Bib. Sac, 1870:1-82; Hof- 
mann, Sohriftbeweis, 1 : 28H341, and 2 : 20 ; Ebrard. Dogmatik, 2 : 144-151, and in Herzog, 
EncydopHdie, art. : Jesus Christ, der GottmcnRch ; also Liebnor, Christliche Dogmatik. 
Henry Ward Beecher, in his Life of Jesus the Christ, chap. 3, emphaaiies the word 



THE TWO KATUBB8 IK OHB PBB80K. 687 

*liik,** in Jokn 1 : ii, and doclares tho paasaffe to mean that the divine Spirit enyeloped 
himself in a human /xM/y, and in that condition was subject to the indispensable limi- 
tations of material laws. All these advocates of the view hold that Deity was dormant, 
or paralysed, in Christ durincr his earthly life. Its eosenoe is there, but not Its efficiency 
at any time. 

Against this theory we nrge the following objections : 

(a) It rests npon a false interpretation of the passage John 1 : 14 — 
6 ?^yoc edp^ eyivero. The word odp^ here has its common New Testament 
meaning. It designates neither soul nor body alone, but human nature in 
its totality (c/. John 8 : 6 — rb yeyewtjfikvov U t^ aapKb^ aap^ iartv ; Bom. 7 \ 
18 — ovK oiKEi kv ifioi, Toin^ iartv h ry aapKi ftov, aya&6v ), That iytvero does not 
imply a transmutation of the Adyof into human nature, or into a human 
soul, is evident from ioK^vuaev which follows — an allusion to the Shechinah 
of the Mosaic tabernacle ; and from the parallel passage 1 John 4:2 — kv 
aapKl eAj7Atn9^a— where we are taught not only the oneness of Christ's 
person, but the distinctness of the constituent natures. 



JohAl:14— **tke ▼ordbeeuM tttk, anddvalt [tabemaded] ■■MB^u.aiidvvbehildbis^lflry**; 8:6— 
*'Tkatvlu0kisboraoft^lMkisflflik'^Ram.7:i8-''iBB^t]iatit,mm7flMh.dvtUMkiios<K^ IJoka 

4:2—* Jerai Qiriik if nbm in tka flaik.'* Since " flMk," in Scriptural usage, denotes human nature 
In its entirety, there is as little reason to infer from these passages a change of the 
Logos into a human body, as a change of the Logos into a human souL There is no 
curtailed humanity in Christ. One advantage of the monistic doctrine is that it avoids 
this error. Omnipresence Is the presence of the whole of Qod in every place. Fi 85 : 9— 
"SonljkisalTatioii is nigh tliim that faar kin, Tkatglory mnj dwell in oor land ** — was fulfilled when 
Christ, tho true Shekinah, tabernacled in human flesh and men *'bdwld kii glory, glory u of 
the only bogotten from the Pttbnr, ftill of gnoo and truth" (John 1 : 14 ). And Paul can say in 2 Oor. 12 : 9— 
" Most gladlj tkarffare will I nthor gkry in mj wrnkjumtt, that the power of Christ may spread a tabemade orer me.'* 

(&) It contradicts the two great classes of Scripture passages already 

referred to, which assert on the one hand the divine knowledge and power 

of Christ and his consciousness of oneness with the Father, and on the 

other hand the completeness of his human nature and its derivation from 

the stock of Israel and the seed of Abraham ( Mat 1 : 1-16 ; Heb. 2 : 16). 

Thus it denies both the true humanity, and the true deity, of Ohrist 

See the Scripture passages cited in proof of the Deity of Christ, pages 805-315. GesB 
himself acknowledges that, if the passages in which Jesus ayers his divine knowledge 
and power and his consciousness of oneness with the Father refer to his earthly life, 
his theory is overthrown. *' A polUnarlanism had a certain sort of grotesque grandeur, in 
giving to the human body and soul of Christ an infinite, divine wcumo. It maintained 
at least the divine side of Christ's person. But the theory before us denies both sides.*' 
While it so curtails deity that it is no proper deity, it takes away from humanity all 
that is valuable in humanity ; for a manhood that consists only in body is no proper 
manhood. Such manhood is like the ** half length ** portrait which depicted only the 
Itncer half of the man. Mat. 1 : 1-16, the genealogy of Jesus, and Heb. 2 : 16 — ** taketh hold of the 
seed of Abraham " — intimate that Christ took all that belonged to human nature. 

( c) It is inconsistent with the Scriptural representations of Gk>d's immu- 
tability, in maintaining that tho Logos gives up the attributes of Gkxlhead, 
and his place and office as second x)erson of the Trinity, in order to contract 
himself into the limits of humanity. Since attributes and substance are 
correlative terms, it is impossible to hold that the substance of €k>d is in 
Christ, so long as he does not possess divine attributes. As we shall see 
hereafter, however, the possession of divine attributes by Ohrist does not 
necessarily imply his constant exercise of them. His humiliation indeed 
consisted in his giving np their independent exercise. 



(S8^ CHRISTOLOGTy OR THE DOCTRIXB OP REDKICPnOK. 

See Dorner, UnTcrlDderUailBeit Gottes, tn JaliTtNich fBr deatacteTbeoloffle,l:aa; 
2: ilO; 3:57»; esp. 1 .aaO-US— "Gea hol<to that, daring the thlrty-tiirBe yeu* of Jeras' 
euthly life, the Trinity wu altered : the FitLer no more poured hli fulnes into the 
Boo; the ^m no more, with the Father, seat forth the Holj Spirit; the world was 
Qpb^ld and ffOvenM^i hy Fatb«.'r and Spirit alone, witbrjut the mediatioo of tlie 800; 
tlie Father ocasf.-d to tKfret the S<m. He myi the Father alooe has ateiiw ; he is the on! j 
Monas. The Trinity is a family, wboee buad is the Father, but whoae number and con- 
dition is variable. To Geas. it is indifferent whether the Trinity consists of Father, Son« 
and Holy Spirit, or (as during Jesus' life ) of only one. But this is a Trinity in which 
two mem Ijera are aocidentaL A Trinity that can get along without one of its membets 
Is nrit the Scriptural Trinity. The Father depends on the Son, and tlie Spirit depends 
00 the Sr>n, as much as the Son depends on the Father. To take away the Son is to take 
away the Father and the Spirit. This giving up of the actuality of his attribntca. even 
of his holiness, on the part of the Logos, is In order to make it possiUe for Christ to 
sin. But can we ascribe the possibility of sin to a being who is really God? The reality 
of temptation requires us to postulate a veritable human souL** 

( d ) It is desimctive of the whole Scriptnral scheme of aidTBtion, in that 

it renders imposKible any experience of human natnre on the part of the 

divine, — for when God becomes man he ceases to be Qod ; in that it renders 

imposHible any soificient atonement on the part of human nature, — for 

mere humanity, even though its essence be a contracted and dormant deity, 

is not caijaV>le of a suffering which shall have infinite value ; in that it 

renders imjxiHsible any proper union of the human race with Qod in the 

person of Jcsiis Christ, — for where true deity and true humanity are both 

abseut, there can be no union between the twa 

See I>omer, Jabrbuch f. d. Tbeologie, 1 : 300— ** Upon this theory only an e^difUtory 
atonement can \Mi maintained. There is no real humanity that, in the strength of divin- 
ity, can bring a sacrifice to God. Not substitution, therefore, but obedience, on this 
view, reconcil(« us to God. Even if it is said that Gkxi's Spirit is the real soul in all men, 
this will not help the matter ; for we should then have to make an essential distinction 
between the indwelling of the Spirit in the unregeneratc, the regenerate, and Christ, 
rosr'<^'tively. But In that case we lose the likeness between Christ^s nature and our 
own,— Christ's being pre^xistent, and ours not. Without this pantheistic doctrine, 
Christ*8 unlikenesB to us is y(*t greater ; for he is really a wandering God, clothed in a 
human body, and cannot properly l>e called a human souL We have then no middle- 
point between the brxly and the Godhead ; and in the state of exaltation, we have no 
manhood at all.— only the infinite Logos, In a glorified body as bis garment.** 

Isaac Watts*8 theory of a pretixistent humanity in like manner implies that humanity 
is originally In deity ; it does not proceed from a human stock, but from a divine ; 
b(.*tween the human and the divine there is no proper distinction ; hence there can be 
no proper redeeming of h umunity ; see Bib. Sue., 1875 : 421. A. A. Hodge, Pop. Lectures, 
S96— '* If Clirist does not take a human vi^cv/io, he cannot be a high-priest who feels with 
us in all our inflniiities, having been tempted like us.** Mason, Faith of the Gospel, 
138— ** The conversion of the Godhead into flesh would have only added one more man 
to the number of men- a sinless one, perhaps, among sinners— but it would have 
effected no union of God and men." On the theory in general, see Hovoy, God with 
Us, OMJO; Hoilge, Syst. Theol., 2:43(M40; PhUippi, Glaubenslchre, 4 : 886-406; Bleder- 
mann, Christlicbo Df)gmatik, 856-360; Bruce, Humiliation of Christ, 187, 280; Schaff, 
Christ and Christianity, 115-119. 

B. Theory of a gradual incarnation. — Domer and Kothe hold that the 
niiion between the divine and the human natures is not completed by the 
incarnating act. 

The advocates of this view maintain that the union between the two 
natures is accomplished by a gradual communication of the fulness of the 
divine Logos to tlie man Ohrist Jesus. This communication is mediated 
by tlio human consciousness of Jesus. Before the human consciousness 
begins, the personality of the Logos is not yet divine-human. The per- 




THE TWO NATURES IN ONE PERSON. '689 

sonal tinion completes itself only gradnally, as the human consoionsnees is 
sufficiently developed to appropriate the divine. 

Bomer, Glaubenslehre, 2 : 600 ( Syst. Doot., 4 : 125 ) — *' In order that Christ mUrht show 
hJs high-priestly love by suffering and death, the different sides of his personality yet 
stood to one another in relative separableness. The divine-human union in him, accord- 
ingly, was before his death not yet completely actualized, although its completion was 
from the beginning divinely assured.*' 2 : 481 ( Syst. Doct., 8 : 828 ) — ^ In spite of this 
becoming^ inside of the Unto, the Logos is from the beginning united with Jesus in the 
deepest foundation of his being, and Jesus* life has ever been a divine-human one. In 
that a present receptivity for the (Godhead has never remained without its satisfaction. 

Even the unconscious humanity of the babe turns receptively to the Logos, as 

the plant turns toward the light. The initial union makes Christ already the God-man, 
but not in such a way as to prevent a subsequent becoming ; for surely he did become 
omniscient and incapable of death, as he was not at the beginning." 

2:464 SQ. (Syst. Doct., 8:8B3 sq.) — *'The actual life of God, as the Logos, reaches 
beyond the beginnings of the divine-human life. For if the Unio is to complete itself 
by growth, the relation of impartation and reception must continue. In his personal 
consciousness, there was a distinction between duty and being. The will had to take up 
practically, and turn into action, each new revelation or perception of God*s will on the 
part of Intellect or conscience. He had to maintain, with his will, each revelation of 
his nature and work. In his twelfth year, he says : * I mut be about mj Father's buimnB.' To 
Satan *s temptation: 'irt thoa God'i Son?' he must reply with an affirmation that sup- 
presses all doubt, though he will not prove it by miracle. This moral growth, as it was 
the will of the Father, was his task. He hears from his Father, and obeys. In him, 
imperfect knowledge was never the same with false conception. In us, ignorance has 
error for Its obverse side. But this was never the case with him, though he grew In 
knowledge unto the end.*' Domer*s view of the Person of Christ may be found in his 
Hist. Doct. Person Christ, 5 : 248-261 ; Glaubenslehre, 2 : 847-474 ( Syst. Doct., 8 : 243-378). 

A summary of his views is also given in Princeton Rev., 1878: 71-87— Domer illus- 
trates the relation between the humanity and the deity of Christ by the relation 
between God and man, in conscience, and in the witness of the Spirit. '* So far as the 
human element was immature or incomplete, so far the Logos was not present. 
Knowledge advanced to unity with the Logos, and the human will afterwards confirmed 
the best and highest knowledge. A resignation of both the Logos and the human nature 
to the union is involved in the incarnation. The growth continues until the idea, and 
the reality, of divine humanity perfectly coincide. The assumption of unity was grad- 
ual, in the life of Christ. His exaltation began with the perfection of this develop- 
ment" Rothe*s statement of the theory can be found in his Dogmatlk, 2 : 49-182 ; and 
In Bib. Sac, 27: 386. 

It is objectionable for the following reasons : 

(a) The Scripture plainly teaches that that which was bom of Mary 
was as completely Son of God as Son of man ( Luke 1 : 85 ) ; and that in 
the incarnating act, and not at his resurrection, Jesus Christ became the 
God-man ( PhiL 2:7). But this theory virtually teaches the birth of a 
man who subsequently and gradually became the God-man, by consciously 
appropriating the Logos to whom he sustained ethical relations — relations 
with regard to which the Scripture is entirely silent^ Its radical error is that 
of mistaking an incomplete consciousness of the union for an incomplete 
union* 

In Lake 1:35 —"the holy thing whifih is* begotten thall be called the Son of God"— and PhiL 2: 7— "emptied 
himselt taking the tarn of a serrant^ being made in the likenea of men"— we have evidence that Ohrist 
was both Son of God and Son of man from the very beginning of his earthly life. But, 
according to Dorner, before there was any human consciousness, the personality of 
Jesus Christ was not divine-human. 

( 6 ) Since consciousness and will belong to personality, as distinguished 
from nature, the hypothesis of a mutual, conscious, and Toluntary appro- 

U 



C90 CHRIdTOLOGT, OR THE DOCTRIXE OV REDKMFTIOSr. 

priatinfa of dmnit]r bj hnmiuiity and of humanity by divimty, dozing the 
eanhlj life of ClirLst, Ls bat a more subtle ft^rm of the Nestoiian doctrine 
of a fL>nole personalitT. It follows, moreover, that as these two personal- 
itifA do not become absolutely one nntil the resurrection, the death of the 
man JefiTU Chn«t, to whom the Lojtos has not yet fnUy united himBrif, 
cannot poss«!n=i.s an infinite atoning efficacy. 

Thr>nuuiua, Chrbtl Person und Wcrk, ::5!-7Q, objects to Domer's flew, thmt It 
*" if-^U Uii to a num who is in intimate communion with God,— a man of God, but not a 
man who in God." He maintains, a^nst Domer, that ^Um* unin-yn between the divine 
an<! human in Christ exists before the consciousneas of it/* ltf3-193— Domer's view 
** makes each element, the divine and the human, lon^ fi^r the other, and reach its 
truth and realit j onl j in the other. This, so far as the divine is concerned, is verj like 
pantheism. Two urOlino personalities are presupposed, with ethical relation to etuA 
other.' two persons, at least at the first. Says Domer: * So lon^ as the manhood is yet 
unconscious, the person of the l/igos is not yet the central tuo of this man. At the 
befrinnin^r, the I^fros does not impart hinuelf, so far as he is person or seif-conscious- 
DesH. He keeps apart by himself. Just in pn>portion as the manhood fails in power of 
perception.' At the beginning, then, this man is not yet the God-man ; the Logos only- 
works in him, and on him. * The uafr) pem^ruUii ir^ows and compk^tes itself, — becomes 
ever more all-aided and complete. Till the resurrection, there is a relative separability 
stllL' Thus Domer. But the Scriptore knows nothing of an ethical relation of the 
divine to the human in Christ's peison. It knows only of one divine-human subject.** 
See also Thomasius, 2 :80-aS. 

( c ) While this theory asserts a final complete union of Qod and man in 
Jeans Christ, it renders this union far more difficult to reason, by involving 
the merging of two persons in one, rather than the union of two natures 
in one person. We have seen, moreover, that the Scripture gives no coun- 
tenance to the doctrine of a double personality during the earthly life of 
Christ. The God-man never says : '*I and the Logos are one *' ; *' he that 
hath seen me hath seen the Ijogos'* ; " the Logos is greater than I " ; "I 
go to the Logos. '* In the absence of all Scripture evidence in favor of this 
theory, we must regard the rational and dogmatic arguments against it as 
conclusive. 

Liebner, in Jahrbnch f . d. Theologie, 8 : 349-aOS, uifres, against Domer, that there is no 
sign in Scripture of such communion between the two natures of Christ as exists 
between the three persons of the Trinity. Pbilippi also objects to Domer^s view : ( 1) 
that it implies a pantheistic identity of essence in both God and man ; ( S ) that it makes 
the resurrection, not the birth, the time when the Word became flesh ; (3) that it does 
not explain how two personalities can become one; see Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 4:864- 
880. Pbilippi quotes Df>mer as sajing : ** The unity of essence of God and man is the 
great discovery of this age.*' But that Domer was no pantheist appears from the foW 
lowing quotations from his Hist. Doctrine of the Person of Christ, II, 3 : S, 33, 08, 113 — 
** Protestant philosophy bas brought about the recognition of the essential connection 

and unity of ttie human and the divine To the theology of the present day, the 

divine and human are not mutually exclusive but connected magnitudes, having an 
Inward relation to each other and reciprocally confirming each other, by which view 
both separation and identification are set aside. .... And now the common task of 
carrying on the union of faculties and qualities to a union of essence was devolved on 

both. The diiferenoe between them is that only God has aseity Were we to set 

our face against every >iew which represents the divine and human as intimately and 
essentially related, we should be wilfully throwing away the gains of centuries, and 
returning to a soil where a Christology is an absolute imposEdbility.*^ 

See also Domer, System, 1 : l::3— ** Faith postulates a diiferenoe between the world 
and God, between whom religion seeks a union. Faith does not wish to be a mere 
relation to itself or to its own representations and thoughts. That would be a mono- 
log ue ; fait h desires a dialogue. Therefore it does not consent with a monism which 

'\-— — — - 



THB TWO NATURES IN ONE PERSON. 691 

is opposed to such moalsm, but which has no desire to oppose the rational demand for 
unity ) is in fact a condition of true and vital unity.'* The unity is the foundation of 
religion ; the difference is the foundation of morality. Morality and rcUirion are but 
different manifestations of the same principle. Man*s moral endeavor is the working* 
of Ood within him. God can be revealed only in the perfect character and life of Jesus 
Christ. See Jones, Robert Browning, 14S. 

Stalker, Imago Chrlsti : ** Christ was not half a Gk)d and half a man, but he was per- 
fectly Ood and perfectly man.** Mobcrly, Atonement and Personality, 1XS — "The 
Incarnate did not oscillate between being Ood and being man. He was indeed aiioayn 
Qod, and yet never otherwise God than as expressed within the possibilities of human 
consciousness and character.** He know that he was something more than he was as 
incarnate. His miracles showed what humanity might become. John Caird, Fund. 
Ideas of Christianity, 14— **The divinity of Christ was not that of a divine nature in 
local or mechanical Juxtaposition with a human, but of a divine nature that suffused, 
blended, identified itself with the thoughts, feelings, volitions of a human individuality. 
Whatever of divinity could not organically unite itself with and breathe through a 
human spirit, was not and could not be present in one who, whatever else he was, was 
really and truly human.*' See also Biedermann, Dogmatik, 361-853; Hodge, Syst. 
TheoU 2 : 428-180. 

3. T?ie real nature of this Union. 

(a) Its great importance. — While the Scriptares represent the person 
of Ohrist as the crowning mystery of the Christian scheme ( Matt 11 : 27 ; 
OoL 1 : 27 ; 2 : 2 ; 1 Tim. 8 : 16 ), they also incite ns to its study ( John 
17 :3; 20 :27 ; Luke 24 :89 ; PhiL 8:8, 10). This is the more needful, 
since Christ is not only the central point of Christianity, but is Christianity 
itself — the embodied reconciliation and union between man and God. 
The following remarks are offered, not as fully explaining, but only as in 
some respects relieving, the difficulties of the subject. 

Matt. U : 27' "no on* kooweth tk« Son, rnn tht fatkor; Mitkar doth anj know tha Vatkar, mto the Son, and ka to 
whamaoaTir the Son villath to rsraal him." Here it seems to be intimated that the mystery of the 
nature of the Son is even greater than that of the Father. Shedd, Hist. Doct., 1 : 408— 
The Person of Christ is in some respects more baflUng to reason than the Trinity. Yet 
there is a profane neglect, as well as a profane curiosity : OoL 1 : 27— "thariehaa of tha glorj of 
thiamyitary .... which ia Ohriat in 70a, tha hopa af glory"; 8:2^8— "tha mTataiy of God, aran Christ, in whom 
ara all tha tnaaona of wiadcHB and knowladga hidden"; lTim.8:16 — "graatiatkamj^aiyofgodlinflaa; lawko vu 
manifaatadin tha flaah" — here the Vulgate, the Latin Fathers, and Buttmann make fivtm^piov 
the antecedent of of, the relative taking the natural gender of its antecedent, and 
/uivimjpiov referring to Christ ; Ieb.2 :11 — "both he that aanctifiethaDdthajthatareaanetifledaraallofone 
[ not father, but race, or substance ] " (cf, ieta 17: 26 — " he made of one ererj nation of men" )— an 
allusion to the solidarity of the race and Christ's participation in all that belongs to us. 

John 17: 8 — "thia ia liib eternal, thatthqr ahonld know thee the only trne God, and him who tkon didst send, eren 
Jesoa Christ"; 80:27— "Reach hither thj finger, and see mj handa; and reach hither thj hand, and pat it into mj 
aide : and be not futhleaa, bat beliflTing" ; lAke 84 : 89— "See mj hjmda and my ftet» that it is I mjaelf: handle m^ 
andaae; &r a apirit hath not fleeh and bonee, uje behold me haTing"; FhiL3:8,10 — "leoontalithingstobeloaa 
for tha exeellency of the knowledge of Qirist Jeeaa mj Lord .... that I maj know him" ; 1 John 1:1 — "that wUeh 
we hare heard, that whieh we hare sea with oar eje% that which we beheld, and oor handa handled, eenoeming tke 
Word of lift.'* 

Nash, Ethics and Revelation, 254, 266— ^^Banke said that Alexander was one of the 
few men in whom biography is identical with universal history. The words apply far 
better to Christ." Crane, Religion of To-morrow, 267 — ^* Religion being merely the 
personality of Ood, Christianity the personality of Christ.*' Pascal : *' Jesus Christ is 
the centre of everything and the object of everything, and he who does not know him 
knows nothing of the order of nature and nothing of himself." Goethe in his last years 
wrote : *' Humanity cannot take a retrograde step, and we may say that the Christian 
religion, now that it has once appeared, can never again disappear ; now that it has 
once found a divine embodiment, cannot again be dissolved.*' H. B. Smith, that man of 
clear and devout thought, put his whole doctrine into one sentence : '* Let us come to 
Jesufl^— the penoa of Christ is the centre of theology.*' Dean Stanley never tired of 



6^ CWKI3TOLOGT, OR THX DOCTRrSV OF RKDEXPTI02r. 



qfiiofSnir as fate tiwn Coatattoa of Vittli tih? wnrit of Joka B uuian : ** 

bi«:«c Sepukrhre — bieit rasiier lie — Tbe man. wiko tikeve was put to flMune for 

And Charier W^skry wroce oa Catbo.ic Lore : "^ W^arj of mil this vovdy strife, 

mtMoiM, f onns. aii<a modes axkd nsmes. To tbee, the W^j, the Truth, the Life, 

lore mj ifmpie hesrt inflsmps— Dtrtaeiy tanght, at last I fty* ^Hth ihee and tUne to 

liTe and dje.** 

** We hare two great lakes, named Crie and Ontario* and theaeareeo ua ac te dty the 
^imtgnn, Rirer throng which Erie poors its waters into Ontarioi. The whole Ckristhui 
Chorch throti^^at the ages has been caDed the OTerilow of Jcaos Christ, who Is 
Inflxxitely gr^^ater than it. Let Lake Erie be Uie sjmbok of Christ, the pre^xiftent 
Logos, the Eternal Word, God revealed in the universe. Let Niagara River be a pic- 
tare to OS of this same Cbrtet now oonlined to the oirrow channei of His manifeiFtatioo 
In the Ifesh, but wittun those limits showing the same e&stwaM current and downward 
gravitation wtiich men perceived so imperfectijr before. The tretnendoos cataract, 
with its waters plunging i&to the abjas and shaking the veiy earth, is the suffering and 
death of the Son of G^jd, which for the first time makes palpable to homan hearts the 
forces of rigfaurousness and love operative in the Divine nature from the beginning. 
The law of anivenal life has been made manifewr ; now it is seen that |astioe and judg- 
ment are the foundations of God's throne ; that God*s righteousness ererywhere and 
always makes penalty to follow sin ; that the love which creates and of^ioids sinners 
most itaelf be numbered with the transgreasora, and must bear their iniquities. 
Niagara has d^-monstrated the gravitation of Lake Erie. And not in vain. For from 
Niagara there widens out another peaceful lake. Ontario is the offspring and Ukeneas 
of Erie. So redeemed humanity is the overflow of Jesus Chri^ but only of Jesus 
Christ after He has passed through the measureless self-abandonment of His earthly 
life and of His tragic death on Calvary. As the waters of Lake Ontario are ever fed by 
Niagara, so the Church draws its life from the cross. And Christ's purpose is, not tliat 
we should repeat Calvary, for that we can never do, but that we should reflect in our- 
selves the same onwanl movement and gravitation towards self-sacrifice which He has 
revealf.*d as characterizing the very life of God** (A. H. Strong, Sermon before the 
Baptist World Congress, London, July 12, 1905). 

( 6 ) The chief problems. — These problems are the foDowing : L aoe 
perHoriality and two natares ; 2. human natnre withont personalitj ; 3. 
relation of the Logos to the humanity dnring the earthly life of Christ ; 4. 
relation of the humanity to the Logos during the heavenly life of Christ. 
We may throw light on 1, by the figure of twro concentric circles ; on 2, 
by reni(iml)ering that two earthly parents unite in producing a single child ; 
on 3, by the illustration of latent memory, which contains so much more 
than prew3nt recollection ; on 4, by the thought that body is the manifes- 
tation of spirit, and that Christ in his heavenly state is not confined to 
place. 

Luther said that wc should need " new tongues *' before we could properly set forth 
this doctrine, — particularly a now language with regard to the nature of man. The 
further elucidation of the problems mentioned above will Immediately occupy our 
attention. Ourlnvfistlgatlon should not be prejudiced by the fact that the divine 
element In Je^uH ChriHt maniftrflts itself within human limitations. This is the con- 
dition of all revelation. John 14:9 — "he thjit hath seen me hath seen the F&ther"; CoL 2:9— "inhia 
dwelltrthallthefaln'Mwofthe Godhead bodily" — up to the measure of human capacity to receive 
and to ('xprt'-M the divine. leb. 2: 11 and lets 17:26 both attribute to man a consubstan- 
tiality with ChrJHt, and ChrLnt la the mnnifceted Qod. It is a law of hydrostatics that 
the flrimllest (;olurnn of wuter will balance the largrest. Lake Erie will be no hifrher than 
the water In the tul>o (r<jnn(*cted therewith. So the person of Christ reached the level 
of (iod, though limited In extent and environment. He was God manifest In the flesh. 

liolM^rt llrownliiKt Death in the Desert: '' I say, the acknowledgment of God in Christ 
Ao(M)|)t4ul by thy reaaotu solves for thee All questions in the earth and out of It, And 
hoNHO far advan(K;d the© to bo wise"; Epilogue to Dramatis Personee: "That on© 
Kh<jo, far from vanish, rather grows, Or decomposes but to recompoee, Become my 
Unlvei-w! that f(M«ls and knows." "That face," said Browning to Mrs. Orr, ashe fln- 
uIiIkhI reading the poem, " is the face of Christ. That is how I feel him." This Is his 




THE TWO NATURES IN ONE PERSON. 693 

answer to those victims of nineteenth century scepticism for whom incarnate Love 
has disappeared from the universe, carrjringr with it the belief in Qod. He thus attests 
the continued presence of God in Christ, both In nature and humanity. On Browning* 
as a Christian Poet, see A. H. Stronfp, The Great Poets and their Theoloiry. 873-447,* 
S. Law Wilson, Theology of Modern Literature, 181-236. 

( c ) Reason for mystery. — The nnion of the two natures in Christ's person 
is necessarily inscrutable, because there are no analogies to it in our exi)eri- 
ence. Attempts to illustrate it on the one hand from the union and yet 
the distinctness of soul and body, of iron and heat, and on the other hand 
from the union and yet the distinctness of Christ and the believer, of the 
divine Son and the Father, are one-sided and become utterly misleading, if 
they are regarded as furnishing a rationale of the union and not simply a 
means of repelling objection. The first two illustrations mentioned above 
lack the essential element of two natures to make them complete : soul and 
body are not two natures, but one, nor are iron and heat two substances. 
The last two illustrations mentioned above lack the element of single per- 
sonality : Christ and the believer are two persons, not one, even as the Son 
and the Father are not one person, but two. 

The two illustrations most commonly employed are the union of soul and body, and 
the union of the believer with Christ. Each of these illustrates one side of the grreat 
doctrine, but each must be complemented by the other. The former, taken by itself, 
would be Eutychian ; the latter, taken by itself, would be Neetorian. Like the doctrine 
of the Trinity, the Person of Christ is an absolutely unique fact, for which we can find 
no complete analogies. But neither do we know how soul and body are united. See 
Blunt, Diet Doct. and Hist. Thcol., art. : Hypostasis; Scui^orlus, Person and Work of 
Christ, 27-«5 ; Wilberforoe, Incarnation, 39-77 ; Luthardt, Fund. Truths, 281^334. 

A. A. Hodge, Popular Lectures, 218, :iaO— ** Many people are Unitarians, not because 
of the difficulties of the Trinity, but because of the difficulties of the Person of Christ. 
. . . The union of the two natures is not mechanical, as between oxygen and nitrogen 
in our air ; nor chemical, as between oxygen and hydrogen in water ; nor organic, as 
between our hearts and our brains ; but personal. The best Illustration is the union of 
body and soul in our own persons,— how perfectly Joined they are in the great orator I 
Yet here are not two natures, but one human nature. We need therefore to add the 
illustration of the union between the believer and Christ." And here too we must con- 
fess the imperfection of the analogy, for Christ and the believer are two persons, and 
not one. The person of the God-tnan is imique and without adequate paralleL But 
this constitutes its dignity and glory. 

{d) Ground of possibility. — The possibility of the nnion of deity and 
humanity in one person is grounded in the original creation of man in 
the divine image. Man*s kinship to God, in other words, his possession of 
a rational and spiritual nature, is the condition of incarnation. Brute-life 
is incapable of union with God. But human nature is capable of the divine, 
in the sense not only that it lives, moves, and has its being in God, but that 
Gk>d may unite himself indissolubly to it and endue it with divine powers, 
while yet it remains all the more truly human. Since the moral image of 
God in human nature has been lost by sin, Christ, the perfect image of 
God after which man was originally made, restores that lost image by 
uniting himself to humanity and filling it with his divine life and love. 

2 Pet. i : 4 — " partaken of the dirine natore." Creation and providence do not furnish the last 
limit of God's Indwelling. Beyond these, there is the spiritual union between the believer 
and Christ, and even beyond this, there is the unity of God and man in the person of 
Jesus Christ. Domer, Glaubenslehre, 2 : 283 ( Sj'st. Doct., 3 ; 180 ) — " Humanity in Christ 
is related to divinity, as woman to man in marriage. It is receptive, but it is exalted by 
leoeMng, Christ is the offspring of the [ marriage ] covenant between Ckxl and Israel." 



1>» i-iiLrr j::-:»fT.. li 133^ >i#:mF2: iw xanaacT^rms. 




r." MML rziK rzinjr lux ik auiK me: irat i» 
ir '^ea^rzy.^smjf: lute ii*r cr-zaf ini 
'•• «^ Ifti nifor :|f Mr i-jv^rf '^ 

m m .r^ -w^u^ ixast m h iimr' 
ftca^. «ri>.-mt, oil ^Mt obvi oC 
5*-m am t^ti'T vr-.*t» mfmxR 

^gUuiki, mr^. inr zu*- tl— mt 

• Ti#» i#-»»*«iait •anar.iUL 
1b*:turuiti#« trun ^uc.— r « ms 
>■?: V;^ snvw uxit ■•'•jna n. 

VT* T'fliur; tr **»?«*••■■»* a irLuut w lit r*!*- ■r«iif * inuiiiir *s" 
usjTUbjft* r. ifir nnu*r Irs azi^^ r tt i» v]a& jx. ^mf » lOBk. £ 
jir^tmuir.iiA » ■;ii*r»i'.r» ti*t -^rr tiuLoustr if Tte josk nf i i i i inaiii l j . 
MMuni^CfUi tif innxjttiirj « zut hiuf: nar utu. n? lil "^Twf^ Mht s sic a 
*i -.'VL inr la *!ni;r7 - j^_ -ii n% ILitft tnni -rat iirti i in * j- ihiiiimtt 

Vui tfuuit vj: jurrw if^ftflnxtf ax miRu ir i. t^^^u ir & ^snv. Hm ^ onhii 
turn \^^x.\MF tut;! ▼!>* niiiiK jx tim jzuiur. v«:*: h Tiiirr. iri^ ?*iilli7» le^wiB 
tit* iiir^; lariLii- 'Jiu^iniizir ib;iC ~-Ik: * i*l miiiSfr? :t rmt l*in..~.* £. £. 
• Ij • It;:- ; fciil uinxBiiir.' tr» i*:n ••:iir:niilim:r7 TirrdisttH^ jf Ti.i*- imc. )«ksl 

fl"'itj»^ 7\-jr j» vj¥i znt^ :tf ZUrrjfiL Ian lit * nxtnratT i^i-UKr umvir Tte 
tm'.w*: 'Utoi tr» »r»- 2f ▼"* «i7 ii» &— mrr- m A Hfw tmt. "afc-o. 
<»u' i€ 'tf» t» i4. ' *>- " * T^*r» ii:r -Ju* *t* _-«2:! & ^nrr. 3C r iunc f nr x n.'<iii£ 
Jb*' uvui.:ur «r#i.:iKt y.»i_ii "=b* »:n« :#t inc. ''f-ar* uns "at? smiL jawJf ttmnt" 

^vtii 'viii'L ruu'^ limam 'JL ^iracaicirT. 1 : 3E — ""A fnnk e- zsnts 
jtmf^if JX ••jww'x :t r» t:i— .--..iirrTj : ':n3 i. arta*. snibl rr ji*rp»- aomnt ^ 
« tovut-**- * . - - . i : JLl — " >'»i -•^.•xji x.:n :#; •>:« •.cjt nu nun. 

mtu"^^ -i**3L» pK^-jt fcu: fc-.rr-.'T"!. 5ii:«*-inr "Lat ^rti-T* «ti«iiiiaL3 tl xbkcO 

jl 4K^3t JX i:^tL vir, A IT. vii% UK TUKiiJ^a&i^rc. :( •>>£ 1.: tia^. sr»£ 
lutrv 'Jt wwBr. i;-.ji*cir 7 a •-; i*^ -w-um ^>:f^f -w-^rk ^ ant ■••rrtji i* ^ 

"»'*: ittTT^ '-x^^, •-uywk jacyEr zzr^mzxvtsk^ urn *« 

13K7 f^^^^T--^^ 'w£i^ 'j ag' . Tir.jfc. _xi*o»» 'If ^3k ^ ""' r : ijk- I.1 .t* , «=i£ jc bsi^ a 

«.-,- v-e* ».>'>*u*v. :.7 -i'. zr/'- ^^f*- iuL * 2 :i — • ■anais' iTiBK. ▼» hbl mk sm .... 







'^ « ; X'/ ^r^fjh p^Tvyiduirr. — Tiis pcsseos:^ of t^3 mforeis does Boi 
%ui'.i^*i a 4v*ry>: j^T%r>«.4l:tT iii ihie G*>i-iijc, f-;T ihe reksoc thja the Logos 
Ukk/rst ;.v2/> TiiSWfi^ Thh Lfi:L.^Ii, i.ot an ir^irrid;^ r^sn with Alzvttdr der^l- 
tj^A jMfnfJSAi.tr^ \nX hruukSL zjiOsirH wLich fafts bsd n*? separue exxFSenee 
V^//r<: :5* T5r.y>E* '■itL ti* dirir*^ Clirxn's K-^Tr^r* ii^riire is inpcf^Hal, in 
tf>; f»^.;ii^ ^.iA it ultkizji mli'^.Zi.^afjns^jim acd self -ieter^t i^Ation onhr in 
U,/^ j>:fv,rjk.ltT fA the G^yi-ELAQ- Here it is ir3f«L»riaLnt to Enxk the di»- 
tixi^^/ti U^veen nstore sod p€noo. Ssbne is tmbfitinnft pooBesaed in 




THE TWO NATURES IX ONE PERSON. 695 

oommon ; the persons of the Trinity have one nature ; there is a common 
nature of mankind. Person is nature separately subsisting, with powers 
of consciousness and wilL Since the human nature of Christ has not and 
never had a separate subsistence, it is impersonal, and in the God-man 
the Logos furnishes the principle of personality. It is equally important 
to observe that self -consciousness and self-determination do not belong to 
nature as such, but only to personality. For this reason, Ghrist has not 
two consciousnesses and two wills, but a single consciousness and a single 
wilL This consciousness and will, moreover, is never simply human, but 
is always theanthropic — an activity of the one personality which unites in 
itself the human and the divine (Mark 13 : 32 ; Luke 22 : 42). 

The human father and the human mother are distinot persons, and they each give 
something of their own peculiar nature to their child ; yet the result is, not two per- 
sons in the child, but only one person, with one conBdousness and one will. So the 
Fatherhood of God and the motherhood of Mary produced not a double personality in 
Christ, but a single personality. Domer illustrates the union of human and divine in 
Jesus by the Holy Spirit in the Christian, — nothing foreign, nothing distinguishable 
from the human life into which it enters ; and by the moral aense, which is the very 
presence and power of Ood in the human soul,— yet consdenoo does not break up the 
unity of the life ; see C. C. Everett, Essay's, 32, These illustrations help us to understand 
the interpenetration of the human by the divine in Jesus ; but they are defective in 
suggesting that his relation to Ood was different from ours not in kind but only in 
degree. Only Jesus could say: "Bdbnibnkam vubon,Iui" (Jokn8:58); ** I aad th« Fatkcr art 
«M**(JohiilO:30). 

The theory of two consciousnesses and two wills, first elaborated by John of Damas- 
cus, was an unwarranted addition to the orthodox doctrine propounded at Chalcedon. 
Although the view of John of Damascus was sanctioned by the Council of Constanti- 
nople ( 681 ), " this Council has never been regarded by the Greek Church as cecumeni- 
cal, and its composition and spirit deprive its decisions of all value as indicating the 
true sense of Scripture " ; see Bruce, Humiliation of Christ, 90. Nature has conscious- 
ness and will, only as it is manifested in pernim. The one person has a single con- 
sciousness and will, which embraces within its scope at all times a human nature, and 
sometimes a divine. Notice that we do not say Christ's human nature had no will« 
but only that it had none before its union with the divine nature, and none separately 
from the one will which was made up of the human and the divine united ; vertus Cur- 
rent Discussions in Theology, 6 : 383. 

Sartorius uses the illustration of two concentric circles : the one ego of personality 
in Christ is at the same time the centre of both circles, the human nature and the 
divine. Or, still better, illustrate by a smaller vessel of air inverted and sunk, some- 
times below its centre, sometimes above, in a far larger vessel of water. See Mark 18 : 82 
— " of that day or that hoar knoweth no <nu, not OTon tha angola in hoaron, naithor tho Son " ; Loko 28 : 42 — " Fkthor, 
if thoa be viUing, remoro this cop from me : noTorthoIon not mj lill, bat thin^ be dona." To say that, 
although in his capacity as man he was igrnorant, yet at that same moment in his 
capacity as God he was omniscient, is to accuse Christ of unveracity. Whenever Christ 
spoke, it was not one of the natures that spoke, but the person in whom both natures 
were united. 

We subjoin various definitions of personality : Bo^thius, quoted in Domer, Glau- 
benslehre, 2 : 415 ( Syst* Doct., 8 : 818 ) — *' Persona est animsB raUonalis individua substan- 
tia"; F. W. Robertson, Lect on Gen., p. 3—*^ Personality » self -consciousness, will« 
character *' ; Porter, Human Intellect, 6S96— " Personality — distinct subsistence, either 
actuaUy or latently self-conscious and self-determining'*; Harris, Philos. Basis of 
Theism, 408— ** Person —being, conscious of self, subsisting in individuality and iden- 
tity, and endowed with intuitive reason, rational sensibility, and free-wilL** Dr. E. G. 
Bobinson defines ^'nature** as "that substratum or condition of being which deter- 
mines the kind and attributes of the person, but which is clearly distinguishable from 
the person itself.'* 

Lotze, Metaphysics, g 244 — *^ Tho identity of the subject of inward experience is all that 
we require. So far as, and so long as, tho soul knows itwlf as this identical subject, it 
is and is named, simply for that reason, substance." lilingworth, Personality, Human 



C>5 CHKISIOLOGY, OB THE l^XTRINE OF BEDEMmOS. 

aoS Dfiiitt,9 — "^Oar ooooerdoa of ■abstac'se Ss not dertrcd from the pbjtfoaL bat 
f irxsi ti^ BMStal, vr/fid. SnbctaDce is flnt of all that wbjcfa nadRiies oar mentAl 
MS^JU^jtm %xA iLaaJfestaskms. Kant 4eci*red thai the idea of freedom m tbe «ouroe of 
'Air »« of p«:Tw>cuu;t J*. Penonaiiti' cooci$ts in the freedooi of the vhoie wvA from the 
B^:tMxiimn of oatunr." On penooalitr, aee WinddlHUKS, Hist. Phiioa^ SEl For the 
Xki^frj of two cfjn^ci'jvBtaemeg and two wUia. see PfaCippl, Gianhcnakhre. 4 : 121,231; 
lUhnii, Dormatik. 2:314; HiAgeiej. Bodj of Diriiiity, 1:4T«; Hodge. Sy«. TteoL, 
2 : '^i^-^Sfn ; iiUA±, iKigpm- TlK^iL, 2 : SB9-308, cfp. 3S^. Prr ccT.<ra, see Hovej, God with 
ri,«S: Scfaair, Church Hist^ 1 : 737. and 3 : 751 ; Gilderwood. Moral Fhflflaophj,]>-14: 
Wflherf one. looamation, lilH^im ; Van Oosteraee, Dofroaticai* SU-fiUL 



(/) EBed npon the hunuuL — ^The union of the dirine mnd the hnmm 
natores makes the hUter pomened of the powers belonging to the former ; 
in other words, the attribntes of the divine nature are imparted to the 
hnman without passing over into its essence, — so that the human Christ 
even on earth had power to be, to know, and to do, as God. That this 
power was latent, or was only rarelj manifested, was the resolt of the self- 
chrjsen state of humiliation upon which the God-man had entered. In 
this state of hnmOiation, the orimmunication of the contents of his dirine 
nature to the human was mediated by the Holy Spirit The God-man, in 
his servant-form, knew and taught and performed only what the Spirit 
Iiermittedanddirected(Mat.3:16; John 3 : 34 ; Acts 1 :2; 10:38; Heb. 
9 : 14 ). But when thus permitted, he knew, taught, and performed, not» 
like the prophets, by jxiwer communicated from without, but by virtue of 
his own inner divine euergy (Mat 17 : 2 ; Mark 5 : 41 ; Luke 5 : 20^ 21 ; 
6:10; John 2 : 11, 24, 25 ; 3 : 13 ; 20 : 19). 

Kahnis, Dogmatilc. 2d ed^ 2 : 77 — ^ Human nature does not heoome divine, but (as 
Chemnitz lias said ) onljr the medium of tbe divine ; as the moon has not a liir^t of her 
own. but only sbincs in the li^ht of the sun. So human nature may derivatively exer- 
cise divine attributes, because it Is united to the divine in one person.*' Mason, Faith 
of the GospeU 151— ^ Our souls spirituaUxc our bodies, and will one day give us the 
spiritual lK>f]y. while yet the body drjes not become spirit. So tbe Godhead £rives divine 
powfrrs to the humanity in Christ, while yet the humanity does not oease to be 
huirianity." 

Pbiiippi, Glaubenslehro, 4 : 131 — ** The union exalts the human, as lii^ht brightens the 
air, beat gives glow to tbe iron, spirit exalts the body, tbe Holy Spirit hallows the 
believer by union with bis souL Fire gives to iron its own properties of lljrhtinir and 
burning ; yet the iron does not become fire. Soul gives to bod}- its life-energy ; yet the 
body d(>L-B not become souL The Holy Spirit sanctiflc'e tbe believer, but the believer 
does not become divine ; for the divine principle is the determinincr one. We do not 
•peak of airy light, of iron heat, or of a bodily soul. So human nature possesses the 
diviny only derivatively. In this sense it is our destiny to become 'ptrtakan^fthAiinat 
Baton' (2Pft 1:4).** Even in his earthly life, when he wished to be, or more correctly, 
when the Spirit permitted, be was onmlpotcnt, omniscient, omnipresent, could walk 
the sea, or pass through closed doors. But, in his state of humiliation, he was subject 
Ut the Holy Spirit 

In Mat 3 : 16, tbe anointlnfir of the Spirit at his baptism was not the descent of a mate- 
rial dove ("u a dora";. The dove-like appearance was only the outward slfirn of the 
coming forth of the Holy Spirit from the depths of his being and pouring itself like a 
flood into his di vino-human consciousness. John 3 : 34 — " for he g:iTeth not the Spirit by naann " ; 
Ada 1 ; 2 — "aftar that he had glTen (wmmandment thrwgh the Holy Spirit nnto the apoadaa " ; 10 ; 38 — " Jwos of laaretk, 
how Ood aaoiiited him with the Holy Spirit and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that wert 
tppreaaed of the derii; for God waa with him"; Heb. 9: 14 — "the blood of Christ, who throogh the olMial itpirit 
offered hinuelf without blemiih unto 6ol" 

When iiermitted by the Holy Spirit, he knew, taught, and wroufirht as God : Mat. 17 : S 
— "hewu tranaflgnred before them"; llark5:41 — "Damael, I aay onto thee, Arise "; Laie5:2Q,21 — "Kan.thy 
nnt are forgiren thee ... . Who can forgire sins, bat Ood alone?" —Lake 6 : IS—^power came fbrth from him, 
and healed them all" ; John 2 : 11 — '^This beginning of his signs did Jesos in Gana of Galile% and manifested his 
|la7";H25— "hskaewall man . . . . he himself knew what was in man " ; 3:13— "tht Sea of man. whs is 




THE TWO NATUEES IK ONB PEBSOK. 697 

IthMfn** [here, however, Westcott and Hort, with H and B, omit hStvivr^ ovpav^^—tor 
advocacy of the common reading, see Broadua, In Hovey's Com., on John 3 : 13] ; 20 : 19— 
"when the deon ww that .... Jasos oamt and ilood ia the midsL" 

Christ is the "nrrantof JehoTah" (18.42:1-7; 49:1-12; S2:13; 53:11) and the meaning of voTv 
(Aflti3:13, 26; 4:27. 30)18 not *'chUd"or'*Son'*; it is "semat," as In the Revised Version. 
But, in the state of exaltation, Christ Is the " lord of the Spirit " (2 Gor. 3 : 18— Meyer ), giving 
the Spirit ( John 16 : 7—* I wiU eeod him unto joa "), present In the Spirit ( John 14 : 18— "I oome nnto 
joa '* ; Met 28 : 20 — " I am vith 70a alirays, trea onto the the end of the vorid "), and working through the 
Spirit ( 1 Oor. 15 : 45— " The lart idam beeame a lib-KiTing sprit '*) ; 2 Oor. 8 : 17 — ''lov the I«rd is the Spih^ 
On Christ's relation to the Holy Spirit, see John Owen, Works, 280-297 ; Bobins, in Bib. 
Sao., Oct. 1874 : 616; Wilberforoe, Incarnation, 208-24L 

Delitzsch : ** The conception of the servant of Jehotah l8» as it were, a pjrramid, of 
which the base is the people of Israel as a whole ; the central part, Israel according to 
the Spirit ; and the summit, the Mediator of Salvation who rises out of Israel.'* Cheyne 
on Isaiah, 2:263, agrees with this view of Delitiscb, which is also the view of Oehler. 
The O. T. is the life of a nation ; the N. T. is the life of a man. The chief end of the 
nation was to produce the man; the chief end of the man was to save the world. 
Sabatier, Phllos. Religion, 60 — ^* If humanity were not potentially and in some degree 
an Immanuel, God with us, there would never have issued from its bosom he who bore 
and revealed this blessed name." We would enlarge and amend this illustration of the 
pyramid, by making the base to be the Logos, as Creator and Upholder of all (SpLl :23; 
(U. 1 : 16); the stratum which rests next upon the Logos is universal humanity ( Pi. 8 : 5, 6) ; 
then comes Israel as a whole ( Hat 2 : 15 ) ; spiritual Israel rests upon Israel after the flesh 
(Ii. 42 :l-7) ; as the acme and cap stone of all, Christ appears, to crown the pyramid, the 
true servant of Jehovah and Son of man ( I& 53 : 11 ; Vat^ 20 : 28 ). We may go even further 
and represent Christ as forming the basis of another inverted pyramid of redeemed 
humanity ever growing and rising to heaven (18.9:6— "Irerlasting Father"; Ii. 53: 10— "he 
ihaU8eehisieed";ReT.28:16— "rootaad oflhpring of Sarid ";Ieh.S:13— "laadthe ehildnn vhom God hath 
gimBML" 

(g) Effect nx>on the divine. — ^This commtmion of the natures was such 
that, although the divine nature in itself is incapable of ignorance, weak- 
ness, temptation, suffering, or death, the one person Jesus Christ was 
capable of these by virtue of the union of the divine nature with a human 
nature in him. As the human Savior can exercise divine attributes, not in 
virtue of his humanity alone, but derivatively, by virtue of his possession 
of a divine nature, so the divine Savior can suffer and be ignorant as man, 
not in his divine nature, but derivatively, by virtue of his possession of a 
human nature. We may illustrate this from the connection between body 
and souL The soul suffers pain from its union with the body, of which 
apart from the body it would be incapable. So the God-man, although in 
his divine nature impassible, was capable, through his union with human- 
ity, of absolutely infinite suffering. 

Just as my soul could never suffer the pains of fire if it were only soul, but can suffer 
those pains in union with the body, so the otherwise impassible God can suffer mortal 
pangs through his imion with humanity, which he never could suffer if he had not 
joined himself to my nature. The union between the humanity and the deity is so 
close, that deity itself is brought under the curse and penalty of the law. Because 
Christ was God, did he pass unscorchod through the fires of Gtothsemane and Calvary ? 
Bather let us say, because Christ was Gk>d, he underwent a suffering that was absolutely 
infinite. Philippi, Glaubenslehro, 4 : 300 8q,; Lawrence, in Bib. Sac., 24 : 41 ; SchUberlein, 
in Jahrbuch f Or deutsche Theologle, 1871 : 459-501. 

A. J. F. Behrends, in The Examiner, April 21, 1808— "Jesus Christ is Qod in the form 
of man ; as completely God as if he were not man ; as completely man as If he were 

not God. He is always divine and always human The inflrmities and pains of 

his body pierced his divine nature The demand of the law was not laid upon 

Christ from without, but proceeded from within. It is the righteousnetis in him which 
makes his death necessary.'* 



698 CHRISTOLOGY, OR THE DOCTRINE OF REDEMPTION. 

(h) Necessity of the nnion. — The nnion of two natures in one person 
is necessary to constitute Jesns Christ a proper mediator between man and 
God. His two-fold natore gives him fellowship with both parties^ since it 
snYolves an equal dignity with God, and at the same time a perfect sympathy 
with man ( Heb. 2 : 17, 18 ; 4 : 15, 16). This two-fold nature, moreover, 
enables him to present to both God and man proper terms of reconcilia- 
tion : being man, he can make atonement for man ; being God, his atone- 
ment has infinite value ; while both his divinity and his humaniiy combine 
to move the hearts of offenders and constrain them to submission and love 
(1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 7:25). 



ItlL2:17.18 — '■¥to«iBnttb«homdkimiBaUtkiBK>tob6iMdalikfVitokislrilki^ bMSM a 

■crafid and fidtUal k%k priest in thiagi pertaming to God, to make pnpitatiai for tke nis of tko peoplo. For ii tkak hi 
kiniMlfkathnfertdbeiiiffteiiiptod^koisablatosaooortheiBtkat an tempted"; 4:15^ 16— "Por wekaTt aotm kigk 
priest that oanaot be toaehed vitk Uie fwling of oar infiniuties ; bat ooe tkat katk beea in all pointa tempted like u 'W* 
are^ yet without sio. let ns therefore draw near with boldness utto the throne of grioe, that w« maj reesiTe msnj, and 
maj find graee to help ns in time of need" ; 1 Tim. 2:5 — "one God. ooe mediator also betwtMS God and men, himadf 
man, Christ Jesns " ; Heb. 7 : 25 — " Wherefen also he is able to saTt to the ntteormott thai that draw Msr uts God 
throngh him, seeing he erer lireth to make interoession for them." 

Because Christ is man, he can make atonement for man and can sympathize with man. 
Because Christ is God, his atonement has infinite value, and the union which he effects 
with Qod is complete. A merely human Savior could never reconcile or reunite us to 
God. But a divine-human Savior meeta all our needs. See Wilberforce, Incarnation, 
170-208. As the high priest of old bore on his mitre the name Jehovah, and on his 
breastplate the names of the tribes of Israel, so Christ Jesus is God with us, and at the 
same time our propitiatory representative before God. In Yirgirs ^neid, Dido says 
well : ** Hand Ignara mali, miseris succurrere disco *' — *' Myself not Urnorant of woe. 
Compassion I have learned to show.*' And Terence uttered almost a Christian word 
when he wrote : ** Homo sum, et humani nihil a me alienum puto *'— *^ I am a man, and 
I count nothing human as foreign to me.'* Christ's experience and divinity made these 
words far more true of him than of any merely human being. 

(i) The nnion eternal — The nnion of hnmanity with deity in the person 
of Christ is indissoluble and etemaL Unlike the avatars of the East, the 
incarnation was a permanent assumption of human nature by the second 
person of the Trinity. ]j\the ascension of Christ, glorified humanity has 
attained the throne of the universe. By his Spirit, this same divine>hnman 
Savior is omnipresent to secure the progress of his kingdom. The final 
subjection of the Son to the Father, alluded to in 1 Cor. 15 : 28, cannot be 
other than the complete return of the Son to his original relation to the 
Father ; since, according to John 17 : 5, Christ is again to possess the 
glory which he had with the Father before the world was (c/. Heb. 1:8; 
7:24,25). 

1 Cor. 15 : 28 — "And when all things hare been rabjeeted onto him, th«n ihall the Son also himelf be nhjoeted to 
him that did snbjeet all things onto him, that God maj be all in all " ; John 17:5 — "Father, glorify thou me with thiso 
own lelf with the glory which I had with thee before the world waa"; Heb. 1 : 8 — " of the Son he saith, Tbj throne, 
God, is for erer and erer " ; 7 : 24 — "he, beeaose he abideth forsTer, hath his priesthood nndiangeablo.** Bomer, 
Glaubcnslchre, 2 : 281-283 ( Syst. Doct. 3 : 177-179 ), holds that there is a present and rela- 
tive distinction between the Son's will, as Mediator, and that of the Father (Mat^ 26:39 — 
" not as I wUl, bat u thoa wilt") — a distinction which shall cease when Christ becomes Judge 
( John 16 : 26 — " In that daj 70 shall ask in mj name: and I aaj not onto 70a, that I will pra7 the Father for 70a"} 
If Christ's reU/n ceased, he would bo inferior to the saints, who are themselves to reign. 
But they are to reign only in and with Christ, their head. 

The best illustration of the possible meaning of Christ's giving up the kingdom is 
found in the Governor of the East India Company giving up his authority to the Queen 
and merging it in that of the home government, ho himself, however, at the same time 
becoming Secretary of State for India. So Christ will give up his vioegerenoy, but not 




THE TWO NATUBES IN ONE PERSON. 699 

hte mediatorehip. Now he reigns by delegated authority ; then he will reign in union 
with the Fat her. So Kendrick, in Bib. Sao., Jan. 1890 : 68-83. Wrightnour : *' When the 
great remedy has wrought its perfect cure, the physician will no longer bo looked upon 
as the physician. When the work of redemption is completed, the mediatorial oflSce 
of the Son will cease." We may add that other offices of friendship and instruction 
will then begin. 

Melanchthon : '* Christ will finish his work as Mediator, and then will reign as God, 
immediately revealing to us the Deity." Quenstedt, quoted in Sohmid, Dogmatik, 298, 
thinks the giving up of the kingdom will be only an exchange of outward administra- 
tion for inward,— not a surrender of all power and authority, but only of one mode of 
exercising it. Hanna, on Resurrection, lect. 4 —*'* It is not a e^ving up of his mediatorial 
authority,— that throne is to endure forever, — but it is a simple public recognition of 
the tact that Ood is all in all, that Christ is Ood*s medium of accomplishing alL*' An. 
Par. Bible, on 1 Cor. 15 : 28— ^' Not his mediatorial relation to his ow:n people shall be given 
up ; much less his personal relation to the Godhead, as the divine Word ; but only his 
mediatorial relation to the world at large." See also Edwards, Observations on the 
Trinity, 85 sq. Expositor's Greek Testament, on 1 Oor. 15 : 28, " affirms no other subjection 

than is involved in Sonship This Implies no infenority of nature, no extrusion 

from i>ower, but the free submission of love .... which is the essence of the filial 
spirit which actuated Christ from first to last. .... Whatsoever glory he gains is 
devoted to the glory and power of the F&ther, who glorifies him in turn." 

Domer, G laubonslohre, 2 : 408 ( Syst. Doct. , 8 : 297-209 ) — *' We are not to imagine incar- 
nations of Christ in the angel-world, or in other spheres. This would make incarnation 
only the change of a garment, a passing theophany ; and Christ's relation to humanity 
would be a merely external one.'* Bishop of Salisbury, quoted in Swayne, Our Lord's 
Knowledge as Man, XX— **Are we permitted to believe that there is something parallel 
to the progress of our Lord*s humanity in the state of humiliation, still eroing on even 
now, in the state of exaltation ? that it is, in fact, becoming more and more adequate 
to the divine nature? SeeOoL 1:24— 'All ap that vhioh it lacking'; Ieb.l0:12,18— 'flxpaetingtaikii 
MflmitB*; 10or.l5:28— 'vlMnaUthiiigf kare b«ai nlijeetcd onto kirn.'" In our judgment such a con- 
clusion is unwarranted, in view of the fact that the God-man in his exaltation has the 
glory of his pre^xistent state ( Jokn 17 : 5 ) ; that all the heavenly powers are already sub- 
ject to him (SpL 1:21, 22); and that he is now omnipresent (Hat. 28:20). 

(J) Infinite and finite in Christ — Onr investigation of the Scripture 
teaching with regard to the Person of Ghrist leads us to three important 
conclusions : 1. that deity and humanity, the infinite and the finite, in him 
are not mutually exclusive ; 2. that the humanity in Christ differs from his 
deity not merely in degree but also in kind ; and 8. that this difference 
in kind is the difference between the infinite original and the finite deriva- 
tive, so that Christ is the source of life, both physical and spiritual, for all 
men. 

Onr doctrine excludes the view that Christ is only quantitatively different from other 
men in whom God's Spirit dwells. He is qualitatively different, in that he is the source 
of life, and they the recipients. Not only is it true that the fulness of the Godhead is 
in him alone,— it is also true that he is himself God, self -revealing and self-communi- 
cating, as men arc not. Yet we cannot hold with E. H. Johnson, Outline of Syst. Theol., 
176-178, that Christ's humanity was of one species with his deity, but not of one sub- 
stance. We know of but one imderlying substance and ground of being. This one 
substance is self -limiting, and so self -manifesting, in Jesus Christ. The determining 
element is not the human but the divine. The infinite Source has a finite manifestat ion ; 
but in the finite we see the Infinite ; 2 Cor. 5 : 19— "Ood was in Christ, noonoiling the vorld onto him- 
Mlf '* ; John 14 : 9— " ho that h&th won me hath ooon tho Father." Wo can therefore agree with the fol- 
lowing writers who regard all men as partakers of the life of God, while yet we deny 
that Christ is only a man, distinguiahed from his fellows by having a larger share in that 
life than they have. 

J. M. Whiton : '' How is the divine spirit which is manifest in the life of the man 
Christ Jesus to be distinguished, qua divine, from the same divine spirit as manifested 
in the life of humanity ? I answer, that in him, the person Christ, d welleth the fulness 
of the Godhead bodily. I emphasize fulness, and say : The God-head Is alike in the race 
and in its spiritual head, but the fulness is in the head alone— a fulness of course not 



700 CHKISTOLOOT, OR THE DOCTRIHE OF REDEMPTION. 

steotitte. liDoe cfrcmnacrfbed bj a hanuui orgunitm, bat a falnnB to the limita of tfae 
nr-gmwtiamn^ HTntliil deitj canDot be ascribed to the human Christ, except as in com- 
mon with the race created io the image of God. Life is one, and all life fe dirine." .... 
Gloria Patil,8K,23 — ^ Every incarnation of life is pro tan/o and in ita measure an incar- 
nation of God .... and God 'swaj is a perpetually increasing incarnation of life whose 
dimax and crown is the divine fulness of life in Christ. .... The UomooHgkm of the 
Nioene Creed was a great Tictoiy of the truth. But the Xioene Fathers builded better 
than they knew. The Unitarian Dr. Hedge praised tliem because they got at the truth, 
the logical condusion of which was to come so long after, that God and man are of ooe 
substsDoe.** 80 Momeiie, Inspiration, holds man's nature to be the same in kind with 
God's. Bee criticism of this view in Watta. New Apologetic, 133, 13L HomoiouHo$ he 
regards as involving tu/moouakm ; the divine nature capable of fisBion or segmentation, 
broken off in portions, and distributed among finite moral agents ; the divine nature 
undergoing perpetual curtailment ; every man therefore to some extent inspired, and 
evil as truly an inspiration of God as is good. Watts seems to us to lack the proper 
conception of the infinite as the ground of the finite, and so not excluding it. 

Lyman Abbott aflirms that Christ is, ** not God and man, but God in man/* Cbrist 
differs from other men only as the flower differs from the bulb. As the true man, he 
is genuinely divine. Deity and humanity are not two distinct natures, but one 
nature. The etbico-spiritual nature which is finite in man is identical with the nature 
which is infinite in God. Christ's distinction from other men is therefore in the degree 
in which he shared this nature and possessed a unique fulness of life — "aafliiM vitk tkt 
H«l7 Spirit and vitkp(nrir"( loll 10: 38). Phil Ups Brooks : "* To this humanity of man as a part 
of God — to this I cling ; for I do love it, and I will know nothing else .... Man is. In 
virtue of his essential humanity, partaker of the life of the essential Word. .... 
Into every soul. Just so far as it is possible for that soul to receive It, God beats his 
life and gives his help.'* Phillips Brooks believes in the redemptive indwelling of God 
in man, so that salvation is of man, for man, and by man. He does not somple to my 
to every man ; ** You are a part of God.'* 

While we shrink from the expressions which seem to imply a partition of the divine 
nature, we are compelled to recognize a truth which these writers are laboring to 
express, the truth namely of the essential oneness of all life, and of God in Christ as the 
source and giver of it. " Jesus quotes approvingly the words of Poim 82 : 6 — ' I Mid, Te an 
Godi.* Microscopic, indeed, but divine are we— sparks from the flame of deity. God is 
the Creator, but it is through Christ as the mediating and as the final Cause, 'ind ^n 
through kirn' (ICor. 8:6)*we exist for him, for the realization of a divine humanity in 
solidarity with him. Christ Is at once the end and the instrumental cause of the whole 
process.'* Samuel Harris, God the Creator and Lord of All, speaks of ** the essentially 
human in God, and the essentially divine in man.'* The 8on, or Word of God, ** when 
manifested in the forms of a finite personality, is the essential Christ, revealing that in 
God which is essentially and eternally human." 

Pfleiderer, Philos. Religion, 1:196— '* The whole of humanity is the object of the 
divine love ; it is an Immanuel and son of God ; its whole history is a continual incarna- 
tion of God ; as indeed it is said in Scripture that we are a divine offspring, and that 
we live and move and have our being in God. But what lies potentially in the human 
consciousness of God is not on that account also manifestly revealed to it from the 
beginning." Hatch, Hibbert Lectures, 175-180, on Stoic monism and Platonic dualism, 
tells us that the Stoics believed in a personal Ao-yof and an impersonal vAi}, both of them 
modes of a single substance. Some regarded God as a mode of matter, riatura fiaturala : 
*' Jupiter est quodcunque vides, quodcunque moveris '* ( Lucan, Pbars., 9 : 679 ) ; others 
conceived of him as the natura noturarw,— this became the governing conception. 

.... The products are all divine, but not equally divine Nearest of all to the 

pure essence of God is the human soul : it is an emanation or outflow from him, a sap- 
ling which is separate from and yet continues the life of the parent tree, a colony 
in which some members of the parent state have settled. Plato followed Anaxagoras 
in holding that mind is separate from matter and acts upon It. God is outside the world. 
Ho shapes it as a carpenter shapes wood. On the general subject of the union of deity 
and humanity in tho person of Christ, see Hcrzog, EncyclopKdie, art.: Christologie ; 
Barrows, In Bib. Sac., 10:766; 26 : 83; also, Bib. Sac, 17 : 535; John Owen, Person of 
Christ, in Works, 1 :228; Hooker, Eccl. Polity, book v, chap. 51-56 : Boyco, in Bap. Quar., 
1870:885; Shedd, Hist Doct., 1 : 403 aqr. ; Hovey, God with Us, 61-88; PI umptre, Christ 
and Christendom, appendix ; E. H. Johnson, The Idea of Law in Christology, in Bib. 
Sao., Oct. 18W : 509-«e5. 




THE STATE OF HUMILTATIOK. 701 

SECTION III. — ^THB TWO STATES OP CHRIST. 

L Thb State of Humiliation. 

L ITie nature of this humiliation. 

We may dismiss, as unworthy of serions notioe, the yiews that it consisted 
essontially either in the union of the Logos with human nature, — for this 
union with human nature continues in the state of exaltation ; or in the 
outward trials and privations of Christ's human life, — for this view casts 
reproach upon x>oyerty, and ignores the power of the soul to rise superior 
to its outward circumstances. 

B. O. Robinson, Christian Theology, 224—** The error of supposing it too humiliating 
to obey law was deriyod from the Roman treasury of merit and works of supereroga- 
tion. Better was Frederick the Great's sentiment when his sturdy subject and neigh- 
bor, the miller, whose windmill he had attempted to remove, having beaten him in a 
lawsuit, the thwarted monarch exclaimed: * Thank Ood, there is law in PrusEtal"* 
Palmer, Theological Definition, 79— **GK)d reveals himself in the rock, vegetable, 
animal, man. Must not the process go on ? Must there not appear in the fulness of 
time a man who will reveal Ood as perfectly as is possible in human conditions— a 
man who is God under the limitations of humanity ? Such incarnation is humiliation 
only in the eyoH of men. To Christ it is lifting up, exaltation, glory ; Jokn 12 : 88— 'ind I, 
if I be lifted ap from the avth, vill dnw all men nntomjielt' '* George Harris, Moral Evolution, 400 — 
** The divinity of Christ is not obscured, but is more clearly seen, shining through his 
humanity.'* 

We may devote more attention to the 

A. Theory of Thomasius, Delitzsch, and Orosby, that the humiliation 
consisted in the surrender of the relative divine attributes. 

This theory holds that the Logos, although retaining his divine self- 
consciousness and his immanent attributes of holiness, love, and truth, 
surrendered his relative attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and omni- 
presence, in order to take to himself veritable human nature. According 
to tliis view, there are, indeed, two natures in Christ, but neither of these 
natures is infinite. Thomasius and Delitzsch are the chief advocates of 
this theory in Germany. Dr. Howard Crosby has maintained a similar 
view in America. 

The theory of Thomasius, Delitzsch, and Crosby has been, though improperly, 
called the theory of the Kono6i8(from jicrfy«tf<r€i>— "emptied himielf"— in Phil 8 ;7), and its 
advocates are often called Kenotlc theologians. There is a Kenosis of the Loeros, but 
it is of a diflTercat sort from that which this theory supposes. For statements of this 
theory, see Thomasius, Christi Person und Werk, 2 :233-26S, 542-660 ; Delitzsch, Biblische 
Psychologie, 3&y-S33; Howard Crosby, in Bap. Quar., 1870:850-368— a discourse subse- 
quently published in a separate volume, with the title : The True Humanity of Christ, 
and reviewed by Shedd, in Presb. Kev., April, 1881 : 429-431. Crosby emphasizes the 
word '* beozrub" in John 1 : 14 — "and the Word beoune leek " — and gives the word " fleeh '* the sense 
of " man," or *^ human.'* Crosby, then, should logically deny, though he does not deny, 
that Christ's body was derived from the Virgin. 

We object to this view that : 

(a ) It contradicts the Scriptures already referred to, in which Christ 
asserts his divine knowledge and power. Divinity, it is said, can give up 
its world-functions, for it existed without these before creation. But to 
give up divine attributes is to give up the substance of Godhead. Nor is 
it a sufficient reply to say that only the relative attributes are given up. 



702 CHRISTOLOGY, OF THE DOCTRIITB OF RBDEXPTIOy. 

while the immanent attribntes, which chiefly characterize the (Godhead, are 
retained ; for the immanent necessarily involye the relative, as the greater 
involve the less. 

Liebner, Jabrbucb f . d. TheoL, 3 : 34(^-356 — ** Is tbe LO9O0 bere ? But wherein does he 
show his presence, that it may be known?'* Hase, Huttenis Redivivus, 11th ed^ 217, 
note. John Caird, Fund. Idoasof Christianity, 2: 125-146, criticises tbe theory of the 
Kenosis, but grants that, with all its self-contradictions, as be regards them* it is an 
attempt to render conceivable the profound truth of a sympathizing, self •sacriflcinff 
God. 

(b) Since the Logos, in uniting himself to a human soul, leduoes him- 
self to the condition and limitations of a human soul, the theory is virtually 
a theory of the coexistence of two human souls in Christ But the union 
of two finite souls is more difficult to explain than the union of a finite and 
an infinite, — since there can be in the former case no intelligent guidance 
and control of the human element by the divine. 

Domer, Jabrbucb f. d. Tbeol., 1 : 397-406 — *' The impossibility of makinflr two finite 
souls into one finally drove Arianism to tbe denial of any human soul in Cbrist" 
( Apollinarianism). This statement of Domer, which we have already quoted in our 
account of Apollinarianism, illustrates the similar impossibility, upon the theory of 
Thomasius, of constructing out of two finite souls tbe person of Christ. See also Hovey, 
God with Us, 68. 

( c) This theory fails to secure its end, that of making comprehensible 
the human development of Jesus, — for even though divested of the relative 
attributes of Godhood, the Logos still retains his divine self -consciousness, 
together with his immanent attributes of holiness, love, and truth. This 
is as difficult to reconcile with a purely natural human development as the 
possession of the relative divine attributes would be. The theory logically 
leads to a further denial of the possession of any divine attributes, or of 
any divine consciousness at all, on the part of Christ, and merges itself in 
the view of Gess and Beecher, that the Godhead of the Logos is actually 
transformed into a human souL 

Kabnis, Dogrmatik, 8:343 — ** The old theology conceived of Christ as In full and 
unbroken use of the divine self-consclousucss, the divine attributes, and the divine 
world-functions, from the conception until death. Though Jesus, as foetus, child, boy, 
was not almighty and omnipresent according to bis human nature, yet he was so, as to 
his divine nature, which constituted one ego with his human. Thomasius, however, 
declared that the Logos gave up his relative attributes, during his sojourn in flesh. 
Dorner's objection to this, on tbe gri*ouud of the divine uncbangeableness, overshoots 
the mark, because it makes any hec-^tmiug impossible. 

** But some things in Thomasius' doctrine are still difficult : 1st, divinity can certainly 
give up its world-functions, for it has existed without these before the world was. In 
the nature of an absolute personality, however, lies an absolute knowing, willing, feel- 
ing, which it cannot give up. Hence PkiL 2 : 6-11 speaks of a giving-up of divine glory, 
but not of a giving-up of divine attributes or nature. 2d, little is gained by such an 
assumption of the giving-up of relative attributes, since the Logos, even while divested 
of a part of his attributes, still has full possession of his divine self-consciousness, which 
must make a purely human development no less difficult. 3d, the expressions of 
divine self-consciousness, the works of divine power, the words of divine wisdom, 
prove that Jesus was in possession of his divine self-consciousness and attributes. 

^ The essential thing which the Kenotics aim at, however, stands fast ; namely, that 
the divine personality of the Logos divested itself of its glory (John 17 : 5|, riches (2 Oar. 
8:6), divine form ( PhlL 2:6). This divesting is the becoming man. The humiliation, 
then, was a g\v\ng up of the use, not of the possession, of the divine nature and attri- 
butes. That man can thus give up self -consciousness and powers, wo see every day in 
''^BD. But man does »4t. ^)MV«»by, cease to be man. So w« '«vU«\tain that the Loffos, 



THE STATE OF HUMILIATION. 703 

when he became man, did not divest himself of his divine person and nature, whlsh was 
impossible; but only divested himself of the use and exercise of these— these beinir 
latent to him— in order to unfold themselves to use in the measure to which his human 
nature developed itself —a use which found its completion in the condition of exalta- 
tion.** This statement of Kahnis, although approaching correctness, is still neither 
guite correct nor quite complete. 

B. Theory that the hmniliation oonsiBted in the snrrender of the inde- 
pendent exercise of the divine attributes. 

This theory, which we regard as the most satisfactory of all, may be more 
folly set forth as follows. The humiliation, as the Scriptures seem to 
show, consisted : 

( a ) In that act of the preexistent Logos by which he gave up his divine 
glory with the Father, in order to take a servant-form. In this act, he 
resigned not the possession, nor yet entirely the use, but rather the inde- 
pendent exercise, of the divine attributes. 

John 17 ; 5— ** glorify thoa ma with thiuovnMlfvith the glory wbiflk I hid vitlithMbaf^ FhiL 

:6,7 — "who, existing in tha form of God, eoontednot the being onaneqiulitj withOod a thing to be gnqped, bat 
Mnptied himaelt taking the form of a aerrut, being made in tiu likeoeia of men " ; 2 Cor. 8 : 9 — '^ For ja know the 
graee of oar Lord Jetos Chrii^ that, though he waa rich, yet for yoar mikea he became pocr, that ye through hiaporerty 
might become rioL" Pompilia, in Robert Brownings The Ring and the Book : ** Now I see 
how God is llkest God in being bom." 

Omniscience gives up all knowledge but that of the child, the infant, the embryo, 
the infinitesimal germ of humanity. Omnipotence gives up all power but that of the 
impregnated ovum in the womb of the Virgin. The Godhead narrows itself down to a 
point that is next to absolute extinction. Jesus washing his disciples* feet, in John 13: 
1-40, is the sjnnbol of his coming down from his throne of glory and taking the form of 
a servant, in order that he may purify us, by regeneration and sanctiflcatlon, for the 
marriage-supper of the Lamb. 

b) In the submission of the Logos to the control of the Holy Spirit and 
the limitations of his Messianic mission, in his communication of the 
divine fulness of the human nature which he had taken into union with 
himself. 

Ada 1 : 2— Jesus, "after that he had giTon coamaodment throogh the Holy Spirit onto the apoatlea whom ha had 
ohflaea'*; 10:88 — "Jeios of Haaanth, how Ood anointed him with theHoly Spirit and with power"; Eeb.9:14 — 
" the blood of Ghriat, who through the eternal Spirit offered himaelf without blemiah onto God." A minor may 
have a great estate left to him, yet may have only such use of it as his guardian per- 
mits. In Homer's Iliad, when Andromache brings her infant son to part with Hector, 
the boy is terrified by the warlike plumes of his father's helmet, and Hector puts them 
off to embrace him. So God lajrs aside ** That glorious form, that light unsuiferable 
And that far-beaming blaze of majesty.** Arthur H. Hallam, in John Brown's Rab 
and his Friends, 282, 283— " Revelation is the voluntary approximation of the infinite 
Being to the ways and thoughts of finite humanity.'* 

( c ) In the continuous surrender, on the part of the God-man, so far as 
his human nature was concerned, of the exercise of those divine powers 
with which it was endowed by virtue of its union with the divine, and in 
the voluntary acceptance, which followed upon this, of temptation, suffer- 
ing, and death. 

Kat 26 : 53~"thinke8t thoa that I eannot beieeohmy Father, and he ahall eren now aeodme more than twelre legioni 
of angela?" John iO : 17, 18 — "Tharefare doth the Father bre me, beoanae I lay down my lilb^ that I maj take it again, 
lo one taketh it away from ma, but I laj it down of mjselt I hare power to laj it down, and I hare power to take 
it again"; Fhil2: 8 — "and being found in fuhlonu a man, he humbled himaeli^ becoming obedient erennnto death, 
jea, the death of the oroaa." Cf, Shakespeare, Merchant of Y enioe : ** Such music is there in 
immortal souls, That while this muddy vesture of decay Doth close it in, we cannot 
it," 



704 CHRISTOLOOT, OB THE DOCTRINE OF BEDEMPTIOX. 

Each of fbefle elements of the doctrine has its own Se rip t on J eapparL 
We moflt therefore regard the hnmiliahon of Christ, not as consisting in a 
single act, bat as involving a oontinaons aelf-rennnciation, which began 
with the Kenosis of the Logos in becoming man, and which colmiiiated in 
the self-snbjedion of the God-man to the death of the cxoea. 

Our doctrine of Christ's hnmlUation wfl] be better understood if we imt it midwaj 
between two pairs of erroneous views, nmlring it the third of flTC. The Itat would be M 
follows: (1) Gess: The hogcm gmre up all divine attributes: (3) llioinasius: Tte 
Jj^fM gmve up relative attributes only ; ( 3 ) True View : Tbe Loer« gmve up the inde- 
pendent exercise of divine attributes ; ( 4 ) Old Ortbodoxy : Christ gave up the ose of 
divine attributes ; ( 5 ) Anselm : Christ acted as if he did not possess divine attribotea. 
The full exposition of the clawiral passage with reference to the humiliation, nam^. 
Pkii 2 : i-%, we give below, under the next paragraph, pages 7DS, 70S. Brentlus illustrated 
Christ's humiliation by the king who travels incognito. But Mason, Faith of the Gos- 
pel, 156, says well that ** to part in appearance with only the fruition of the divine 
attributes would be to ioifKise upon us with a pretence of self-sacrifloe ; but to part 
with it in reality was to manifest most perfectly the true nature of God." 

This same objection lies against the explanation given in the diurdi Quarterty 
Review. Oct. 1891 : 1-30, on Our Lord's Knowledge as If an : ** If divine knowledge 
exists in a different form from human, and a translation into a different form is neces- 
sary tjef ore it can be available in the human sphere, our Lord might know the day of 
Judgment as God, and y€;t be ignorant of it as man. This must have been the case if 
he did not chfxme to translate it into the human form. But it might also have been 
incai>able of translation. The processes of divine knowledge may be far above our 
finite comprehension/' This seems to us to be a virtual denial of the unity of Christ's 
[Mrrson, and to make our Lord play fast and loose with the truth. He either knew, or 
he did not know ; and his doiial that he knew makes it impossible that he should 
have known in any sense. 

2. The stages of Chrisfa humiliaiion. 

We may distinguish : ( a ) That act of the premcamate Logos by which, 
in becoiaing man, he gave np the independent exercise of the divine attri- 
bntes. (fj) His submission to the common laws which regulate the origin 
of souls from a preexisting sinful stock, in taking his human nature from 
the Virgin, — a human nature which only the miraculous conception ren- 
dered pure. ( c ) His subjection to the limitations involved in a human 
growth and development, — reaching the consciousness of hissonship at his 
twelfth year, and working no miracles till after the baptism, {d) The 
subordination of himself, in state, knowledge, teaching, and acts, to the 
control of tbe Holy Spirit, — so living, not independently, but as a servant. 
(e) His subjection, as connected with a sinful race, to temptation and suf- 
fering, and finally to the death which constituted the penalty of the law. 

Peter Lombard asked whether God could know more than he was aware of ? It is 
only another way of putting the question whether, during the earthly life of Christ, 
the Logos existed outHide of the flesh of Jesus. We must answer in the aflSrmative. 
'Otherwise the number of the persons In the Trinity would be variable, and the universe 
could do without him who is ever "apholding all tliingi bj the vord of kis poww " ( Eab. 1:3), and in 
whom "alltkingioonsut" (GoLl:17). Let us recall the nature of Ood*s onmipresenoe (see 
pages 2r,'j-2Ki ). Omnipresence is nothing less than the presence of the whole of God in 
every place. From this it follows, that the whole Christ can be present in every believer 
as fully as If that t>ellcver were the only one to receive of his fulness, and that the 
whole Logos can be united to and be present In the man Christ Jesus, whUc at the same 
time he fills and governs the universe. By virtue of this opinipresence, therefore, the 
whole Logr>s can suffer on earth, while yet the whole Logos reigns In heaven. The 
Logos outside of Christ has the perpetual consciousness of his Godhead, while yet the 
Logos, as united to humanity in Christ, Is subject to ignorance, weakness, and death. 
Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 1 : 153 ~'* Jehovah, though present in the form of the burning 




THE STATE OF HUMIUATIOK. 706 

tmsh, was at the same time omnipresent also ** ; 2 : 26&-284, csp. S82— ** Because the 8im 
Is shining In and throu^f h a cloucU It docs not follow that It cannot at the same time bo 
•hlninir through the remainder of universal space, unobstructed by any vapor what^ 
ever.** Gordon, Ministry' of the Spirit, 21—^* Not with God, as with finite man, does 
arrival in one place necessitate withdrawal from another.*' John Calvin : ** The whole 
Ghrist was there ; but not all that was in Christ was there.** See Adamson, The Blind 
of Christ 

How the independent exercise of the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, and 
omnipresence can be surrendered, even for a time, would be inconceivable, if we were 
regarding the Logos as he is in himself, seated upon the throne of the universe. The 
matter is somewhat easier when we remember that it was not the Logos per se, but 
rather the God-man, Jesus Christ, in whom the Logos submitted to this humiliation. 
South, Sermons, S : 9—** Be the fountain never so full, yet if it communicate itself by 
a little pipe, the stream can be but small and inconsiderable, and equal to the measure 
of its conveyance.*' Sartorius, Person and Work of Christ, 39— **The human eye, 
when open, sees heaven and earth; but when shut, it sees little or nothing. Yet its 
inherent capacity does not change. So divinity does not change Its nature, when it 
drops the curtain of humanity before the eyes of the God-man.** 

The divine in Christ, during most of his earthly life, is latent, or only now and then 
present to his consciousness or manifested to others. Illustrate from second childhood, 
where the mind itself exists, but is not capable of use ; or from first childhood, where 
even a Newton or a Humboldt, if brought back to earth and made to occupy an infant 
body and brain, would develop as an infant, with infantile powers. There is more in 
memory than we can at this moment recall,— memory is greater than recollection. 
There is more of us at all times than we know,— only the sudden emergency reveals 
the largeness of our resources of mind and heart and will. The new nature, in the 
regenerate, is greater than it appears: "Belored, now are w* ohildnn of God, and it is not yok nMk 
nunifettwhatireBhAUbe. Voknowthat, if keflhallbenunifostod. vesh&ll be IDuhim" (1 John3 :2). So in 
Christ there was an ocean-like fulness of resource, of which only now and then the 
Spirit permitted the consciousness and the exercise. 

Without denying (with Dorner) the completeness, even from the moment of the 
conception, of the union between the deity and the humanity, we may still say with 
Kahnis : ** The human nature of Christ, according to the measure of its development, 
appropriates more and more to its conscious use the latent fulness of the divine nature.** 
So we take the middle ground between two opposite extremes. On the one hand, the 
Kenosis was not the extinction of the Logos. Nor, on the other hand, did Christ 
hunger and sleep by miracle,— this is Docetism. We must not minimize Christ*s humil- 
iation, for this was his glory. There was no limit to his descent, except that arising 
from his sinlcssncss. His humiliation was not merely the giving-up of the appearance 
of Godhead. Baird, Elohim Revealed, 585 — ** Should any one aim to celebrate the conde- 
scension of the emperor Charles the Fifth, by dwelling on the fact that be laid aside the 
robes of royalty and assumed the style of a subject, and altogether ignore the more 
important matter that he actually became a private person, it would be very weak and 
absurd." C/. 2 Cor. 8 : 9 — *' though he wu rieh, jet fi>r joor Mkei he beoune poor" => he beggared him- 
self. Ilat27:46 — "Mj God, mjGod, whjhask thoa fornken nie?"o- non-exercise Of divine onmi- 
science. 

Inasmuch, however, as the passage PhiL2: M is the chief basis and support of the 
doctrine of Christ*s humiliation, we here subjoin a more detailed examination of it. 

Exposition of Philippians, 2 : 6-8. The passage reads : "who, exiiting in the form of M, 
oonnted not the being on an eqaalitj with God a thing to be gnsped, bnt emptied himself^ taking the form of a serranti 
being made in the hkeneis of men ; and being fonnd in fuhion as a man, he humbled himsell^ beeoming obodiant em 
nnto death, jea, the death of the cross." 

The subject of the sentence is at first ( renei 6, 7 ) Christ Jesus, regarded as the pre&dst- 
ent Logos ; subsequent ly ( rene 8 ), this same Christ Jesus, regarded as incarnate. This 
change in the subject is indicated by the contrast between M-op^ri ^ov ( Tene6) and tutp^tiiv 
SovAov ( Terse 7 ), as well as by the participles f^afiutv and y«y6ii€vo% ( rerse 7) and evp«i^cif (rerse 8) 
It is asserted, then, that the preexisting Logos, " although subsisting in the form of 
God, did not regard his equality with God as a thing to be forcibly retained, but emptied 
himself by taking the form of a servant, ( that is,) by being made in the likeness of men. 
And being found in outward condition as a man, he (the incarnate son of God, yet 
further) humbled himself, by becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the 
cross*' (terse 8). 

Here notice that what the Logos divested himself of, in becoming man. is not the 
45 



706 CHEISTOLOGT, OR IHE DOCTRIXK OF RKDElfPnOV. 



of hH GcMlbewl. hax the "^km if W in viuck xhi§ fobEttnee ww mutifeitod. 
if w«t can t«e ockijr that io4epen4eiit ezcrcue of the poven and prerocmtiTCS 
Of tettj vhick ooasdtaus hs *^ifsiubT v.a fiil' TYiis ke Kirrendesm, in tbe ad of 
* MMja^ ^ iirs if a ■rrus —or becoming subordiziaie; a» iHn. < Here otiier Scripturea 
9>mp«et4& the view, bj their represeniaxioas of the eoaxroUiog infloence of the Holj 
0puit in tiK earthlj life of ChnfCj The phraaea*— fca^^^MwrfM'and -faniia 
A aa ' are oaed to intimate, not that J«aos Christ vaa not reallj- man, but thai 
vaf G<>d as veil aa man, and tbtrref ore free from the ain which dinsa to man ( cf, 
A:%—irmm m^mn 0%^»ti*M^nms — Meyer •. Flnaliy. thii ooe peraoo. DOW God and 
■dm united, saboiitB hlmaetf, eonartonrty and roluntarilj-, to the hnmHiatioo of an 
ICXVWtlniouB death. 

See Uchtforx, oo no. 2 : t—** Chriat diTeated himself. DOC of fail dirine natine, for ^ 
waa tmpr— bte. but of the ^lorieB axMl prerogatiTeB d Deitr. This he did by taking the 
form of a aerram." Brans, in Presb. Ber., 1^^8:2^ — ** Two stacea in Cliriit'shumilia. 
ttoo. each represented bj a finite rerb dpflniny the central act of the particalar stage, 
acoomponied bj two modal partlcipiea. 1st stage indksafeed in t. «L Its oeatral act is : 
*htqy^h airff' lutwo modalities are: (l)*tuaf te hm tf amai*; <2> 'ka^ai^iBte 
Kfmtm d ■«.' Here we have the hnmiliatioo of the Keoosas.— that bj which Quvt 
b€€4inu man. 2d stage, indicated in t. k Its central act is: 'fet ksakM fc —if Ita two 
modaliticaare: (1) *kMgfasaiiafcnaaa>*»«; (2) -liiiaii «bAgtiMii«ifc>yi^th»iiiArftht 
wac* Here we hare the hnmiliatioo of his obedieooe and death,— that bj which, to 
hnmanitj, be became a sacrifice for our stna."* 

Meyer refers lfk.S:8 excJosiTelj to Christ and tbe church, ~*^"g the completed 
imioo future, lK>werer, L e., at the time of the ParoQsia. ** hr ttii omt ihia a ma Init kit 
fabtf ml wAw '*=>-* in the incamatioo, Christ leaves father and mother ( his seat at the 
rigbt hand of God), and cieares to his wife (tbe church k, and then the two (the 
dEaoeoded Christ and the church > become one flesh i one ethical person, as the married 
pair become one by physical union U The Fkthera^ however, c Jerome, Theodoret, 
CSuyacfitom ), referred it to tbe incarnation.'* On the interpretation of lUL 2 : Ml, aee 
Comm. of Xeander, Meyer, Lange, EUicott. 

On tbe question whether Christ would bave become man had there been do shi, theo- 
logians are divided. Domer, Martensen, and Westcott answer in the afllrmative ; 
Bobioson, Watts, and Denney in the negative. See Domer, Hist. Doct» Feraoo of 
Oui$t,5:9S; Martensen, Christian Dogmatics, £7-39; Westcott, Com. on Hebrews, 
page 8— *^ Tbe IncamatioD is in its essence independent of the FalL though oonditiooed 
by it as to its circumstancca." p€r contrcL, see Robinson, Christ. TV-oU 219, note — ^ It 
would be difflcult to sbow tbat a like method of arguoient from a pritiri premisses will 
not equally avail to prove sin to have been a necessary part of tbe scheme of creation.'* 
Denney, Studies in Theology, lOL, objects to tbe doctrine of necessary incarnation irre^ 
^Kctive of sin, tbat it tends to obliterate the dstinction between nature and grace, to 
Mur tbe definite outlines of the redemption wrought by Christ, as tbe supreme reveh^ 
Hon of God and his love. See also Watts, New Apologetic 196-a£: Julius MOOer. 
I>r.»gmat. Abhandiungtn, 06-12S ; Van Oostenee, Dogmatics. SlS^&fiS, 543^518; F6rrest» 
Tbe Authority of Christ, 3IO-3i&. On the general subject of the Kenoeis of the Logoa, 
aee Bruce, Humiliation of Christ; Robins, in Bib. Sac, Oct. 1874 : 613; PhilippI, Glaul>> 
enslehre, 4 : 138-150, 384-475; Pope, Peraon of Oiriat, S; Bodemcyer, Lehre von der 
Kenoels ; Hodge, Syst. TbeoL, S : (SKHCSt. 

n. The State of ExAiiTATiox. 

1. The nature of this exaltation. 

It consisted essentiall j in : ( a ) A resumption, on the part of the Logoa, 
of Lis independent exercise of divine attributes, {f^) The withdrawal, on 
the part of the Logos, of all limitations in his commonication of the divine 
fulness to the human nature of Christ. ( <*) The corresponding exercise, 
on the part of the human nature, of those powers which belonged to it by 
virtue of its union with the divine. 

Tbe ei^th Psalm, with its account of the g^lory of human nature, is at present ful- 
filled only in Christ (see Eth. 2:9— "Ut v« be^4 .... itsas" K i*fai 2 : 7— ^TTMa-«f «viMr 
r YE aop' «y7«Ao«f~ may be translated, as in the margin of the Bev. Ton.: *^ 




THE STATE OF EXALTATION. 707 



Ub ior a WItXLt tchOe low«r tku the aagtk** Chiist^s human body was not necessarily subject 
to death ; only by outward compulsion or yoJuntary surrender could he die. Hence 
resurrection was a natural necessity (idi2:24— "wkoBOtd rutid np^ kariag looitd tks piagB of 
4iitk: bMunitvuBolposfiblttkallitilMaldbebaldnofit"; SI — ** ncitUr vu kt lift nnto Iad«i. nor did kii 
Ink Me eomptioB " ). This exaltation, which then aJBTected humanity only in its head, is to 
be the experience also of the members. Our bodies also are to be delivered from the 
bondage of corruption, and we are to sit with Christ upon his throne. 

2. The stages of Chrisfs excUtcUUm, 

(a) The quickening and resnrrection. 

Both Lutherans and Bomanists difltingniwh between these two, malripg 
the former precede, and the latter follow, Ghrist's "preaching to the spir- 
its in prison." These views rest upon a misinterpretation of 1 Pet 3 : 18- 
20. Lutherans teach that Ghrist descended into hell, to proclaim his 
triumph to evil spirits. But this is to give ix^pv^tv the unusual sense of 
proclaiming his triumph, instead of his gospeL Bomanists teach that 
Ghrist entered the underworld to preach to Old Testament saints, that they 
might be saved. But the passage speaks only of the disobedient ; it can- 
not be pressed into the support of a sacramental theory of the salvation of 
Old Testament believers. The passage does not assert the descent of Ghrist 
into the world of spirits, but only a work of the preincamate Log^ in 
offering salvation, through Noah, to the world then about to perish. 

Augustine, Ad Buodiam, ep. 90 — ** The spirits shut up in prison are the unbelievers who 
lived in the time of Noah, whose spirits or souls were shut up in the darkness of ignor- 
ance as in a prison ; Christ preached to them, not in the flesh, for he was not yet incar- 
nate, but in the spirit, that is, in his divine nature.*' Gal\io taught that Christ descended 
into the underworld and suffered the pains of the lost. But not all Calvinists hold 
with him hero ; see Princeton Essays, 1 : 153. Meyer, on Bad. 10 : 7, regards the question 
~> " Who ihall dacomd into the abya? ( that if, to brin; Chriit up from tiia daid )" — as an allusion to, and so 
indirectly a proof -text for, Christ's descent into the underworld. Mason, Faith of the 
Gospel, 211, favors a preaching to the dead : ** During that time [ the three days ] he 
did not return to heaven and his Father.'* But though John 20: 17 is referred to for 
proof, is not this statement true only of his body ? So far as the soul is concerned, 
Christ can say : " ?ath«r, into thj handi I oooimiBd my ipirit," and "To-daj thra ihiit be vith me in hor 
diM"(Lake23:43,46). 

Zahn and Domer best represent the Lutheran view. Zahn, in Expositor, March, 1806 : 
216-2S3 — *^ If Jesus was truly man, then his soul, after it left the body, entered into the 
fellowship of departed spirits. ... If Jesus is he who lives forovermore and even his 
dying was his act, this tarrjring in the realm of the dead cannot be thought of as a 

purely passive condition, but must have been known to those who dwelt there 

If Jesus was the Redeemer of mankind, the generations of those who had passed away 
must have thus been brought into personal relation to him, his work and his kingdom, 
without waiting for the last day." 

Domer, Olaubenslehre, 2 : 662 (Syst. Doct., 4:127), thinks **Christ*s descent into 
Hades marks a new era of his pneumatic life, in which he shows himself free from the 
limitations of time and space.** He rejects *^ Luther's notion of a merely triumphal 
progress and proclamation of Christ. Before Christ,** he says, *' there was no abode 
peopled by the damned. The descent was an application of the benefit of the atone- 
ment (implied in KJipvavtiv), The work was prophetic, not high-priestly nor kingly. 
Going to the spirits in prison is spoken of as a spontaneous act, not one of physical 
necessity. No power of Hades led him over into Hades. Deliverance from the 
limitations of a mortal body is already an Indication of a higher stage of existence. 
Christ's soul is bodiless for a time — wvMVftM. only —as the departed were. 

** The ceasing of this preaching is neither recorded, nor reasonably to be supposed, 
* indeed the ancient church supposed it carried on through the apostles. It expresses 
the universal significance of Christ for former generations and for the entire kingdom 
of the dead. No phjrsical power is a limit to him. The gates of hell, or Hades, shall not 
prevail over or against him. The intermediate state is one of blessedness for hinit and 



708 CHRISTOLOGY, OB THE DOCTRINE OF REDEMPTION. 

ho can admit the peuitent thief into it. Even those who were not laid hold of by 
Christ's historic muiiifestation in this earthly life still must, and may, be brouerht into 
relation with him, in order to be able to accept or to reject him. And thus the universal 
relation of Christ to humanity and the absolutenesB of the Christian reii^rion are con- 
firmed." So Domer, for substance. 

All this versus Strauss, who thought that the dying of vast masses of men, before and 
after Christ, who had not been brought into relation to Christ, proves that the Chris- 
tian religion is not necessary to salvation, because not univcrsaL For advocacy of 
Christ's preaching to the dead, see also Jahrbuch f tlr d. Theol., 23 : 177-228 ; W. W. Pat- 
ton, in N. Eng., July, 1882 : 4C0-478 ; John Miller, Problems Suggested by the Bible, part 
1 : 93-96 ; part 2 : 38 ; Plumptre, The Spirits in Prison ; Kendrick, in Bap. Rev., Apl. 1888 ; 
Clemen, Niedergefahren zu den Toten. 

For the opposite view, see ** No Preaching to the Dead," in Princeton Rev., March, 
1875 : 197 ; 1878 : 461-491 ; Hovey, in Bap. Quar., 4 : 486 sqr., and Bib. Eschatology, 97-107 ; 
Love, Christ's Preaching to the Spirits in Prison ; Cowles, in Dib. Sac, 1875 : 401 ; Hodge, 
Syst. Theol., 2 : 61&-622 ; Salmond, in Popular Commentary; and Johnstone, Com., in 
loco. So Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Bishop Pearson. See also E. D. Morris, Is 
There Salvation after Death ? and Wright, Relation of Death to Probation, 22 : 28— *• If 
Christ preached to spirits in Hades, it may have been to demonstrate the hopelessness of 
adding in the other world to the privilege enjoyed in this. We do not read that it had 
any favorable effect upon the hearers. If men will not hear Moses and the Prophets, 
then they will not hear one risen from the dead. ' To-day thou shalt be with me in Puadise ' ( Lake 
23 : 43) was not comforting, if Christ was going that day to the realm of lost spirits. The 
antediluvians, however, were specially favored with Noah's preaching, and were spe- 
cially wicked." 

^ For full statement of the view presented in the text, that the preaching referred to was 
the preaching of Christ as preexisting Logos to the spirits, now in prison, when once 
they were disobedient in the days of Noah, see Bartlett, in New Englander, Oct. 1872 : 
601 «(/., and in Bib. Sac., Apr. 1883 : 333-373. Before giving the substance of Bartlett*s 
exposition, we transcril)e in full the passage in question, 1 Pet 3 : 18-20 — "Beeuae Christ alto 
■offered for tiiu (moe, the righteoas for the nnrighteoas, that he might bring us to God ; being pnt to death in the fleah, 
bat made alite in the spirit ; in which also he went and preached onto the wpintt in prison, that afiretime were dit- 
obedient, when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah." 

Bartlett expounds as follows: "'In which '[iri'cv/yiaTi, divine nature ]' he went and pnaohed 
to the spirits in prison when once they disobejel* aireitfijacurii^ is circumstantial aorist, indicating the 
time of the preaching as a definite past. It is an anarthrous dative, as in Lake 8 : 27 ; Mat 8 : 
23 ; lets 15 : 25 ; 22 : 17. It is an appositi ve, or predicative, participle. [ That the aorist par- 
ticiple does not necessarily describe an action preliminary to that of the principal verb 
appears from its use in rerse 18 ( daf arwdeif ), In 1 Thesa. 1 : 6 ( &t$atL€voi ), and in OoL 2 : 11, 13.] 
The connection of thought is : Peter exhorts his readers to endure suffering bravely, 
because Christ did so,— in his lower nature being put to death, in his higher nature 
enduring the opposition of sinners before the flood. Sinners of that time only are men- 
tioned, because this permits an introduction of the subsequent reference to baptism. 
Cy. Gen. e : 3 ; 1 Pet. 1 : 10, 11 ; 2 Pet2 : 4, 5." 

( 6 ) The ascension and sitting at the right hand of God. 

As the resurrection proclaimed Christ to men as the perfected and glori- 
fied man, the conqueror of sin and lord of death, the ascension proclaimed 
him to the universe as the reinstated God, the possessor of universal 
dominion, the omnipresent object of worship and hearer of prayer. DeX' 
tra Dei ubique eat. 

Mat 28 : 18, 20 — "ill authority hath been giten nnto me in beaten and on earth lo, I am with 7«a always, 

eren unto the end of the world " ; Mark 16 : 19 — " So then the Lord Jesna, after he had ipoken nnto them, was receired 
ap into beaten, and sat down at the right hand of God "; lets 7 : 55 — "Bat he, being ftill of the Holy Spirit, looked 
Dp stedf&stly into beaten, and saw the glory of God, and Jesos standing on the right hand of God "; 2 Cor. 13 : 4 — " bs 
was emcifled through weaknees, yet he liteth through the power of God " ; EpL 1 : 22, 23 — "he put all things in sub- 
jection under his feet, and gate him to be head oter all things to the ehurch, which Ib his body, the fblness of him that 
flllethallinall"; 4 : 10 — " He that deeoended is the same also that ascended &r abore all the heatens, that he might 
All all things." Phillppi, Glaubenslehre, 4 : 184-189 - " Before the resurrection, Christ was 
the God-man ; since the resurrection, he is the (iod-man. .... He ate with his disciples, 
not to show the quality^ but the reality, of his human body.*' Niooll, Life of Christ : 



THE STATE OF EXALTATION. 709 

•• It was hard for Elijah to ascend "— it required chariot and horses of fire—" but it was 
easier for Christ to aooend than to descend," — there wus a irravitation upwards. Mac- 
laren : *^ He has not left the world, thoun^h he has ascended to the Father, any more than 
he left the Father when he came into the world '* ; John 1 : 18— "the onlj begotten Son, who is in 
the bonm of the Father " ; 3 : 13 — "the Son of nuui, who is in heeren.** 

We are compelled hero to consider the problem of the relation of the humanity to the 
Logros in the state of exaltation. The Lutherans maintain the ubiquity of Christ's 
human body, and thoy make it the basis of their doctrine of the sacraments. Domer, 
Glaubenslehre, 3 : 671-676 ( Syst. Doot., 4 : 138-U2 ), holds to '' a presence, not simply of 
the Logos, but of the whole God-man, with all his people, but not necessarily likewise 
a similar presence in the world ; in other words, his preseuce is morally conditioned by 
men's receptivity.*' The old theologrians said that Christ is not in heaven, quasi carctre, 
Calvin, Institutes, 2 : 15 — he is ^' incarnate, but not incarcerated.** He has ffone into 
heaven, the place of spirits, and he manifests himself there ; but he has also gone far 
atHYve all heavens, that he may fill all things. He is with his people alway. All power 
Is griven into his hand. The church is the fulness of him that fllleth all in all. So the 
Acts of the Apostles speak constantly of the Son of man, of the man Jesus as God, ever 
present, the object of worship, seated at the right hand of God, having all the powers 
and prerogatives of Deity. See Westcott, Bible Com., on John 20 : 22— "he breathed on them, 
and saith onto them, Reoeite 70 the Holj Spirit "— ** The characteristic effect of the Paschal grift was 
shown in the new faith by which the disciples were gathered into a living society ; the 
characteristic effect of the Pentecostal gift was shown in the exercise of supremacy 
potentially universal." 

Who and what is this Christ who is present with his people when they pray ? It is not 
enough to say. He is simply the Holy Spirit; for the Holy Spirit is the "Spirit of Christ" 
( Rom. 8:9), and in having the Holy Spirit we have Christ himself (John 16 : 7— " I wiU send him 
[the Comforter] unto joa* ; 14 : 18— "I oome onto yon"). The Christ, who is thus present with 
us when we pray, is not simply the Logos, or the divine nature of Christ,— his humanity 
being separated from the divinity and being localized in heaven. This would be incon- 
sistent with his promise, "Lo, I am with jon," in which the "I " that spoke was not simply 
Deity, but Deity and humanity inseparably united; and it would deny the real and 
indissoluble union of the two natures. The elder brother and sympathizing Savior who 
is with us when we pray is man, as well as God. This manhood is therefore ubiquitous 
by virtue of its union with the Godhead. 

But this is not to say that Christ's human body is everywhere present. It would seem 
that body must exist in spatial relations, and be confined to place. We do not know 
that this is so with regard to soul. Heaven would seem to be a place, becausc-Christ's 
body is there; and a spiritual body is not a body which is spirit, but a body which is 
suited to the uses of the spirit. But even though Christ may manifest himself, in a 
glorified human body, only in heaven, his human soul, by virtue of its union with the 
divine nature, can at the same moment be with all his scattered people over the whole 
earth. As, in the days of his flesh, his humanity was confined to place, while as to his 
Deity he could speak of the Son of man who is in heaven, so now, although his human 
body may be confined to place, his human soul is ubiquitous. Humanity can exist 
without body ; for during the three days in the sepulchre, Christ's body was on earth, 
but his soul was in the other world ; and in like manner there is, during the interme- 
diate state, a separation of the soul and the body of believers. But humanity cannot 
exist without soul ; and if the human Savior is with us, then his humanity, at least so 
far as respects its immaterial part, must be everywhere present. Per amtrat see Shedd, 
Dogm. Thcol., 2 : 328, 337. Since Christ's human nature has derivatively become pos- 
sessed of divine attributes, there is no validity in the notion of a progressiveness in 
that nature, now that it has ascended to the right hand of God. See Philippi, Glaub- 
enslehre, 4 : 131 ; Van Oosterzce, Dogrmatics, 558, 576. 

Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2 : 327 — ** Suppose the presence of the divine nature of Christ 
in the soul of a believer in London. This divine nature is at the same moment conjoined 
with, and present to, and modined by, the human nature of Christ, which is in heaven 
and not in London." So Hooker, Eccl. Pol., 64, 55, and E. G. Robinson : " Christ is in 
heaven at the right hand of the Father, interceding for us, while he is present in the 
church by his Spirit. We pray to the theanthropic Jesus. Possession of a human body 
does not now constitute a limitation. Wv. know little of the nature of the present body." 
We add to this last excellent remark the expression of our own conviction that the 
modem conception of the merely relative nature of space, and the idealistic view of 
matter as only the expression of mind and will, have relieved this subject of many of 



710 CHRISTOLOGT, OR THB DOCTRUTS OF BEDSXPTIOK. 

It! former difflcoltiet. If Chrirt li o mulpn aent and If hii body li limply the ny mU lM to - 
turn of bis floul, then emy loul mmj feel tbe pceaenoe of hit hnmanity even now and 
*iW7 •7«*' may '«t km" at his Kcood comiiw, ereo thoo^ bettrren may be separated 
as far aa is Boston from Pekin. The body from which his ffiory llashas forth may be 
TMbtein ten thoiffMlplaceaai the same time; (■^.21:21; UwA-.l), 



SEcnosr it. — ^the offices of christ. 

The ScriptoieB represent Christ's offices as three io number, — prophetio^ 
priestly, and kingly. Although these terms are deriyed from concrete 
hnman relations, they express perfectly distinct ideas. The prophet* the 
priest, and the king, of the Old Testament, were detached bat designed 
prefignrations of him who should combine all these Tarions activities in 
himself, and should famish the ideal reality, of which they were the 
imperfect symbols. 



lC».l:aO— "•fUa any* iaCkriilJM^vktvMBidbaliiiviiiMft«M.aBl] 
aSiia, aai nimpLm." Here "wiakm" seems to indicate the propbeUc, "rigtiiiswMi " ( or **]««- 
itiflt" ) tbe priestly, and "Meiiitttiw mi nimp'm ' the kingly work of Christ, Donovan: 
"Three offices are necessary. Christ must be a prophet, to save us from the ignorance 
of sin ; a priest, to save us from its gruilt ; a king, to save us from its dominicm in our 
flesh. Our faith cannot have firm basis in any one of these alone, any more than a stool 
can stand on less than three legs." See Van Oosteraee, Dogmatics, 663-686; Archer 
Butler, .Sermons, 1 : 314. 

A. A. Hodge, Popular Lectures, 235—^ For ^office,* there are two words in Latin: 
munuM » position ( of Mediator ), and officio = functions ( of Prophet, Priest, and King ). 
They are not separate offices, as are those of President, Chief-Justioe, and Senator. 
They are not separate functions, capable of successive and isolated perf ormanoe. They 
are rather like the several functions of the one living human body — lungs, heart, brain 
— functionally distinct, sret interdependent, and together constituting one life. So the 
functions of Prophet, Priest, and King mutually imply one another : Christ is always a 
prophetical Priest, and a priestly Prophet ; and he is always a royal Priest, and a 
priestly King ; and togrc-'ther they accomplish one redemption, to which all are equally 
SDtiaL Christ is both tt^vinffs and r«^«ucAiptK." 



L The Pbophetio Offigb of Christ. 

1. 7%6 nature of Christ's prophetic work, 

(a) Here we must avoid the narrow interpretation which would make 
the proi>het a mere foreteller of future events. He was rather an inspired 
intcr|>rcter or revealer of the divine will, a medium of oommonication 
between God and men ( ^/w^r/r^f = not foreteller, but forteller, or forth- 
teller. C/. Gen. 20 : 7,— of Abraham ; Ps. 105 : 15, — of the patriarchs ; 
Mat 11 : 9,— of John the Baptist ; 1 Cor. 12 : 28, Eph. 2 : 20, and 3 : 5,— 
of N. T. expounders of Scripture). 

0«.20:7— "mtortthtauui'ivilB; ftrh«if a prophM"* — spoken of Abraham; Pli05:15~"TMiflk art 
■iituwifltedoiM, Aiiddomypropheliiiokarm"— spoken of the patriarchs; lbt.il:9 — *Bal vkatfon 
««Bt 7« oat? to IM a propM? Tea. I mj onto yon, and maeh nore than a prophet" —spoken of John the 
BaptiAt, from whom we have no recorded predictions, and whose pointing to Jesus as 
the "Lamb of Ood" (Joha 1 : 29) was apparently but an echo of laiak 53. 1 Oor.l2: 28— "ftcst apoiUii^ 
Meondlyprophoti"; Iph.2:20— "boiltapcathafoaiidaUoaof thoaposUeiandproiilMti"; 8 : 5 — "nnaM lutd kit 
kil7 apo^ and prapheli in the Spirit"— all these latter texts speaking of New Testament 
expounders of Scripture. 

Any organ of divine revelation, or medium of divine communication, is a prophets 
'* Hence," says Philippi, ** tbe books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings are called 
^pr(n>MM priares^* or *the earlier prophets.' Bernard's BMpict^ Agpice^ Pirospiee 




THE PROPHETIC OFFICE OF CHBI8T. 711 

describes the work of the prophet : for the prophet miffht see and miflrht disclose things 
in the past, things in the present, or things in the future. Daniel was a prophet, in 
telling Nebuchadnezzar what his dream tiad been, as well as in telling its interpretation 
(Du. 2:28, as ). The woman of Samaria rightly called Christ a prophet, when he told 
her all things that ever she did ( Joha 4 : 29 )." On the work of the prophet, see Stanley, 
Jewish Church, 1 : 491. 

( 6 ) The prophet oommonl j nnited three methods of fnlfilling his offioe, 
—those of teaching, predicting, and miracle-working. In aU these respects, 
Jesus Ghrist did the work of a prophet ( Dent. 18 : 16 ; cf. Acts 8 : 22 ; 
Mat 13 :67; Luke 13 :a3; John 6 :U). He taught (Mat 5-7), he 
uttered predictions ( Mat 24 and 25 ), he wrought miracles ( Mat 8 and 9 ), 
while in his person, his life, his work, and his death, he revealed the Father 
(John 8: 26; U:9; 17:8). 

])«at 18 : 15— '* Jflb)Tak th7 God viU iiiM up uto ttM A pfophtk* ft« tt0 iddfl of tk^ 
m« ; unto him ihall yo hetrkoa " ; c/. IflliS : 22 — where this prophecy is said to be fulfilled in Christ 
Jesus calls himself a prophet in Kat 18 : 57 ~"i propkel if not vitliout hooor, mto in hif ovu eonntry, and 
in hii own kouao" ; Luko 18 : SS—^ItravthalMi I noit go on my vaj ti^j and to-MROv and tiie daj following: 
for it cannot bo that a prophtt poriah out of Jtruialam." He was called a prophet : John 6 : 14—" Whtn thirt- 
tan tho pooplo »w tho dgn which ho did, thay laid, Thia ia of a truth tho prophot that oomoth inio tiie worid." John 8 : 
26— "tho things whioh I hoard from him [tho Father], thoao ipoak I onto tho world " ; 14 : 9— *'he that hath Moa 
me hath leen tho F)Uh«r " ; 17 : 8— "the worda irideh thou gareat me I haTO ginn unto than." 

Dcnovan : ** Christ teaches us by his word, his Spirit, his example.'* Christ's miracles 
were mainly miracles of healing'. ** Only sickness is oontaiTious with us. But Christ 
was an example of perfect health, and his health was contagious. By its overflow, 
he healed others. Only a' toueh'CKat 9:21) was necessary." 

Edwin P. Parker, on Horace Bushnell : ^* The two fundamental elements of prophecy 
are insight and expression. Christian prophecy implies insiffht or disoemmentof spirit- 
ual thinirs by divine illumination, and expression of them, by inspiration, in terms of 
Christian truth or in the tones and cadences of Christian testimony. We may define it, 
then, as the publication, under the impulse of inspiration, and for edification, of truths 
perceived by divine illumination, apprehended by faith, and assimilated by experience. 
... It requires a natural basis and rational preparation in the human mind, a suitable 
stock of natural g^ifts on which to graft the spiritual gift for support and nourishment. 
These gifts have had devout culture. They have been crowned by illuminations and 
inspirations. Because insight gives foresight, the prophet will be a seer of things as 
they are unfolding and becoming ; will discern far-signalings and intimations of Provi- 
dence ; will forerun men to prepare the way for them, and them for the way of Gk)d'8 
coming kingdom." 

2. ITie atagea of Chriafa prophetic work. 

These are four, namely: 

(a) The preparatory work of the Logos, in enlightening mankind before 
the time of Christ's advent in the flesh. — All preliminary religious knowl- 
edge, whether within or without the bounds of the chosen people, is from 
Christ, the revealer of God. 

Christ's prophetic work began before he came in the flesh. John 1 : 9~ " Aero waa tho \n$ 
lig^t» oTon the light whidi lighteth erery man, eoming into tho world " — all the natural light of con- 
science, science, philosophy, art, civilization, is the light of Christ. Tennyson: **Our 
little sj'Stcms have their day. They have their day and cease to be ; They are but broken 
lights of thee. And thou, O Lord, art more than they." leb. 12 : 25, 26— "See that 70 nfnae lot 
him that ^oaketh. .... whooe roioe then [ at Sinai ] ihook the earth: but now he hath promieed, saTing, Tot ooai 
more will I make to tremble not the earth only, bat also tho hearen" ; Luke 11 : 49 — " Therefore said the wisdom of 
God, I will send unto them propheta and apoatlea" ; cf. Mat 23 : 34 — "behold, I oend unto jou prophet^ and wIm 
men, and leribei : aome of them ihall ye kill and orueify " — which shows that Jesus was referring to 
his own teachings, as well as to those of the earlier prophets. 

( 6 ) The earthly ministry of Christ incarnate. — In his eartlily ministry, 
Christ showed himself the prophet par excellence. While he submitted. 



712 CHBISTOLOGT, OR THE DOCTBLNB OF REDEMFTIOX. 

Hke the Old Testament prophets, to the direction of the Holj Spirit, unlike 
them, he found the sources of all knowledge and power within himH^lf . 
The word of Ood did not come to him, — he was himself the Word. 



Uk« 6 : »— ''Ab4 an tto nltitait HVfkt U tMA kia : fa- pfvtr oat frtt firm kim. aa4 kaM thfli all " : 
iokB2:U~*'TkisbeKia]uiK«rkisans^'«ni> Gua «# GaliiM; aid mBiieit«4hu0{r/ry";8:38. 58 — *'I 
Kfmk tW tklBgi vkick I kait nn vitk ay Fatkv .... tdan khnham vis bora. I aa"; cf. Sm, 2 : 1 — ■'tka 
wwitiUkankamt tdat":i«ks 1:1 — "la tW btpuisg vas Um ¥«!'* Mat. 28 :53— "tvdTa lefku o/ 
■■K«li":Milf:18 — of hisllfe: 'I kare ptvtr U ky it dovi, and I kava ptver U takt it ^aia " ; 24 — "Is 
ilMtvnttcsii7««rlAW.Isai< Ts an gods? If ks eallad tkea gods, tat* vksa tks vwd sf G«d eaaa . . . . 
aj 70 sf kia, wkoa tk« Fatkor saattiiad and salt lata tk« wid, Tkt« Maspkaamt. baeaose I said, I aa tka Soa of 
Gad ? " Martenaen, Dogmatics, 295-aoU s&ys of Jesus' teaching that " its source was not 
inspiration, but incarnation.*' Jesus was not inspired, — he was the Inspirer. There- 
fore he is the true ^Master of those who know." His disciples act in his name ; be acts 
in his own name. 

( c ) The guidance and teaching of his chnrch on earth, since his ascen- 
Bion. — Christ's prophetic activity is continued through the preaching of 
his apostles and ministers, and by the enlightening influences of his Holy 
Spirit ( John 16 : 12-14 ; Acts 1:1). The apostles unfolded the germs of 
doctrine put into their hands by Christ. The church is, in a derivatiYe 
sense, a prophetic institution, established to teach the world by its preach- 
ing and its ordinances. But Christians are prophets, only as being pro* 
daimers of Christ's teaching ( Num. 11 : 29 ; Joel 2 : 28 ). 

Joka 16 : 12-U — "I kaTt yet aaay tkiags ta mj aata 700, but ye aaaol bar tkaa mv. Eawbeit vkM ka^ tka 
Syiiit «f tnitk, is eoacb ka ikall guide jon iato all tke trntL . . . . le skall glorify bm: far ka akali take ef aiaa aad 
ikall declare it aato 7011 "; lets 1 : i — "Tke&naer traatiMlBada,0 TkeopkilBs, eoneandag all tkat Jesaa began botk 
to do aad to taaek " — Christ's prophetic work was only begun^ duringr his earthly ministry ; 
it is continued since his ascension. The inspiration of the apostles, the illumination of 
all preachers and Christians to understand and to unfold the meanint; of the word they 
wrote, the coniriction of sinners, and the sanctiflcation of believers,— all these are parts 
of Christ's prophetic work, performed through the Holy Spirit. 

By virtue of their union with Christ and participation in Christ's Spirit, all Christians 
are made in a secondary sense prophets, as well as priests and kings. loat 11 : 29 — ** Yoold 
tkal all JeboTBk's people woe prophets, tkat Jekovak woold pat kis Spirit npoa tkem " ; Joel 2 : 28 — "I vill poor oat 
B7 ^irit apcn all fleak ; and 7oar sobs and 7oar daaghten tk»ll propkes7.** All modem prophecy that is 
true, however, is but the republication of Christ's messa^- the proclamation and 
expounding of truth already revealed in Scripture. "All so-called new prophecy, from 
Hontanus to Swedenbor^, proves its own falsity by its lack of attesting miracles.** 

A. A. Hodge, Popular Lectures, 242—" Every human prophet presupposes an infinite 
eternal divine Prophet from whom his knowledge is received. Just as every stream pre- 
supposes a fountain from which it flows As the telescope of highest power takes 

into its field the narrowest segment of the sky, so Christ the prophet sometimes gives 
the intensest insight into the glowing centre of the heavenly world to those whom this 
world regards as unlearned and foolish, and the church recogrnizes as only babes in 
Christ." 

( d ) Christ's final revelation of the Father to his saints in glory (John 
16 : 25 ; 17 : 24, 26 ; c/. Is. 64 : 4 ; 1 Cor. 13 : 12).— Thus Christ's prophetic 
work will be an endless one, as the Father whom he reveals is infinite. 

J<^16:25^''tiiekoaro(nBetk, wken I skall no more speak onto 70a in dark aTings, bat ^all tell 70a plainl7 of 
tke Fatker" ; 17 : 24 — " I desire tkat vhere I am, tke7 also ma7 be witk ae; tkat tke7 ma7 bebold m7 glor7, wkick 
ttoa kast girea me " ; 26 — "I made known onto tkem tk7 nam^ and vill make it knova." The revelation of 
his own glory will be the revelation of the Father, in the Son. Is. 64 : 4 — "for lirom of old men 
kare not keard, nor peroeired b7 tke ear, neitker batk tke 070 seen a God besides tkee^ wko vorketk for kirn tkat vaitetk 
far kirn " ; i Cor. 13 : 12 — " now we see in a mirror, darkl7 ; bat tken &oe to &6e : now I know in part; bat tkea 
ikall I know M7 erea asalso I was fall7 kaowa." Rer. 21 :23— "lad tke dt7 batk no need of tke son, neitker of 
tkemoon,toskineapoait: lSi)rtkeglor74^6oddidligkteait, aad tke lamp tkereof is tke Lamb " — not light, but 
lamp. Light is something generally diffused ; one sees by it, but one cannot see it. 



THE PBIESTLY OFFICE OF GHBIST. 713 

Lamp ifl the narrowingr down, the oonoentratlng, the f oousing of light, so that the U^rht 
becomes definite and risible. So in heaven Christ will be the visible Ood. We shall 
never see the father separate from Christ. No man or angel has at any time seen God, 
*'whamiiomaahathiMD,iioreiBM«L" " Ae oolj begottaa 8o& .... 1m luith dfldand him," and he will for- 
ever declare him ( J<^ 1 :18 ; 1 lim. 6: 16 ). 

The ministers of the gospel in modem times, so far as they are joined to Christ and 
possessed by his spirit, have a right to call themselves prophets. The prophet \b one — 1. 
sent by Qod and conscious of his mission ; 2, with a message from God which he is 
under compulsion to deliver ; 8. a message grounded in the truth of the past, setting it 
in new lights for the present, and making new applications of it for the future. The 
word of the Lord must oome to him ; it must be Ma gospel ; there must be things new 
as well as old. All mathematics are in the simplest axiom ; but it needs divine illumi- 
nation to discover them. All truth was in Jesus' words, nay, in the first prophecy 
uttered after the Fall, but only the apostles brought it out. The prophet's message 
must be 4. a message for the place and time — primarily for contemporaries and present 
needs ; 5. a message of eternal significance and worldwide influence. As the prophet's 
word was for the whole world, so our word may be for other worlds, that "unto the prind- 
ptUtiet and the powwi in tkt kotToilj plaoei might be made known tliroogk the dinroh the manilbld wisdom of Ood'* 
( Iph. 3 : 10 ). It must be also 6. a message of the kingdom and triumph of Christ, which 
puts over against the distractions and calamities of the present time the glowing ideal 
and the perfect consummation to which God is leading bis people: "Blened be the glorj of 
JehoTBh firam his plaee" ; * Jehonh ii in hii holj temple: let all the earth keep alienee before him" ( Ei. 3 : 12 ; lab. 
2 : 20 X On the whole subject of Christ's prophetic office, see Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 
lY, 2 : 2^27 ; Bruce, Humiliation of Christ, WO-Wd ; Shedd, Dogm. TheoL, 2 : 866-070. 

n. The PbibsotiT Office of Christ. 

The priest was a person divinely appointed to transact with Ood on 
man's behalf. He fnlfilled his office, first by offering sacrifice, and secondly 
by making intercession* In both these respects Christ is priest. 

Hebrews 7 : 24-28— "he, beoaose he abideth foreTcr, hath his priesthood onehan^blei Wherelbre also he is able to 
sare to the ntteimoek them that draw near nnto 6od through him, seeing he erer lireth to make interoession for them, 
for such a high prieat became as, holj, gnileleis, nndefiled, separated frton sinners, and made higher than the hearens ; 
who needeth not daily, like those high priests, to offer np saeriiiees, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of tho 
people : f« this he did onee for all, when he offered Vf himselt F« the law appointeth men hi^ priests, having 
inflrmity ; bat the wnrd of the oath, which was after tiie law, appointeth a Son, perfected for erermore.'* The whole 
race was shut out from Ood by its sin. But Ood chose tho Israelites as a priestly 
nation, Levi as a priestly tribe, Aaron as a priestly family, the high priest out of this 
family as type of the great high priest, Jesus Christ. J. S. Candlish, in Bib. World, 
Feb. 1897 : 87-07, cites the following facts with regard to our Lord's sufferings as proofa 
of the doctrine of atonement : 1. Christ gave up his life by a perfectly free act ; 2. out 
of regard to Ood his Father and obedience to his will ; 8. the bitterest element of his 
suffering was that he endured it at the hand of Ood ; 4. this divine appointment and 
infliction of suffering is inexplicable, except as Christ endured the divine judgment 
against the sin of the race. 

1. Chriafa Sacrificial Work, or the Doctrine of tJie Atonement 

The Scriptures teach that Christ obeyed and suffered in our stead, to 
satisfy an immanent demand of the divine holiness, and thus remove an 
obstacle in the divine mind to the pardon and restoration of the guilty. 
This statement may be expanded and explained in a preliminary way as 
follows : — 

( a ) The fundamental attribute of God is holiness, and holiness is not 
self -communicating love, but self-afltening righteousness. Holiness limits 
and conditions love, for love can will happiness only as happiness results 
from or consists with righteousness, that is, with conformity to God. 

We have shown in our discussion of the divine attributes ( voL 1, pages 268-276) that 
holiness is neither self-love nor love, but self-afflrming purity and right. Those who 
maintain that love is self -affirming as well as self-communicating, and therefore that 



714 CHBISTOLOGYy OB THB DOCTBINE OF BEDEMPTION. 

hollnesB is God's love for himself, mast still admit that this self-afBrming love whioh is 
holiness conditions and furnishes the standard for the self -communicating love which 
is benevolence. But we hold that holiness is not identical with, nor a manifestation 
of, love. Since self -maintenance must precede self-impartation ; and since benevolence 
finds its object, motive, standard, and limit in rlfirhteousneas, holiness, the self-€iflBrminfir 
attribute, can in no way be resolved into love, the self-oommunicattng. Gk>d must 
first maintain his own heiug before he can irive to another; and this self-maintenance 
must have its reason and motive in the worth of that which is maintained. Holiness 
cannot be love, because love is irrational and capricious except as it has a standard by 
which it is regrulated, and this standard cannot be itself love, but must be holiness. To 
make holiness a form of love is really to deny its existence, and with this to deny that 
any atonement is neoessary for man's salvation. 

( 6 ) The universe is a reflection of God, and Christ the Logos is its life. 
€k>d has oonetitnted the universe, and homanity as a part of it, so as to 
express his holiness, positively by connecting happiness "with righteous- 
ness, negatively by attaching unhappiness or suffering to sin. 

We have seen, in vol. I, pa«res 108, 808-611, 835-638, that since Christ is the Logos, the 
immanent God, God revealed in nature, in humanity, and in redemption, the universe 
must be recofrnizod as created, upheld and governed by the same Being who in the 
course of history was manifest in human form and who made atonement for human 
sin by his death on Calvary. As all God*s creative activity has been exercised through 
Christ ( vol. I, page 810 ), so it is Christ in whom all things consist or are held together 
(vol. I, page 311). Providence, as well as preservation, is his work. He makes the 
universe to reflect God, and especially God*s ethical nature. That pain or loss univei^ 
sally and inevitably f oUow sin is the proof that God is unalterably opposed to moral 
evil ; and the demands and reproaches of conscience witness that holiness is the funda- 
mental attribute of Gk>d's being. 

( c ) Christ the Logos, as the Bevealer of God in the universe and in 
humanity, must condemn sin by visiting upon it the suffering which is its 
penalty ; while at the same time, as the Life of humanity, he must endure 
the reaction of God's holiness against sin which constitutes that penalty. 

Here is a double work of Christ which Paul distinctly declares in Sob. 8 : 8 — " for vkak 
tiie law eoold not do^ in that it wu vaak throogk the flaih, Ckd, Mnding hif own Son in tli« likenoBB of dnfU fledi $aA 
for da, oondomned sin in the fleiL" The meaning is that God did through Christ what the law 
could not do, namely, accomplish deliverance for humanity ; and did this by sending 
his son in a nature which in us is identified with sin. In connection with sin ( vcpl a/map. 
rtof ), and as an offering for sin, God condemned sin, by condemning Christ. Exposi- 
tor's Greek Testament, in loco : ** When the question is asked, In what sense did God 
send his Son * in connection with sin*, there is only one answer possible. He sent him 
to expiate sin by his sacrificial death. This is the centre and foundation of Paul's gos- 
pel ; see Rom. 8 : 25 sq.** But whatever God did in condemning sin he did through Christ ; 
" God was in QaiA, reoonoiling tho world unto himaelf " ( 2 Cor. 5 : 19 ) ; Christ was the condemnor, as weU 
as the condemned ; conscience in us, which unites the accuser and the accused, shows 
us how Christ could bo both the Judge and the Sin-bearer. 

{d) Our personality is not self-contained. We live, move, and have our 
being naturally in Christ the Logos. Our reason, affection, conscience, 
and will are complete only in him. He is generic humanity, of which we 
are the offshoots. When his righteousness condemns sin, and his love vol- 
untarily endures the suffering which is sin's penalty, humanity ratifies the 
judgment of God, makes full propitiation for sin, and satisfies the demands 
of holiness. 

My personal existence is grounded in God. I cannot perceive the world outside of 
me nor recognize the existence of my feUow men, except as he bridges the gulf between 
me and the universe. Complete self-consciousness would be impossible if we did not 
partake of the universal Reason. The smallest child makes assumptions and uses pro- 
cesses of logic which are all instinctive, but which indicate the working in him of an 



THE PBIBSTLY OFFICE OF CHBIST. 716 

absolute and inftnite Intelli^renoe. True love is possible only as God's love flows into 
us and takes possession of us; so that the poet can truly say : ** Our loves in hlerher 
love endure.** No human will is truly free, unless God emancipates it ; only he whom 
the Son of God makes free is free indeed; "wk out tobt own nlTstian with ftir and tranhUng; kr 
it is God wlio workoth ia joa both to will and to wcrk" ( Pkil. 2 : 12, 13 ), Our moral nature, even more 
than our intellectual nature, witnesses that we are not suflSdent to ourselves, but are 
complete only in him in whom we live and move and have our being ( (M. 2 : 10 ; loli 17 : 28 ). 
No man can make a conscience for himself. There is a common conscience, over and 
above the finite and individual conscience. That common conscience is one in all moral 
beinsrs. John Watson : ** There is no consciousness of self apart from the conscious- 
ness of other selves and things, and no consciousness of the world apart from the con- 
sciousness of the single Reality presupposed in both.*' This single Reality is Jesus 
Christ, the manifested God, the Light that lighteth every man, and the Life of all that 
lives ( John 1 : i 9 ). He can represent humanity before God, because his immanent Deity 
constitutes the very essence of humanity. 

( 6 ) While Christ's love explains his willingness to endure suffering for 
us, only his holiness furnishes the reason for that constitution of the uni- 
verse and of human nature which makes this suffering necessary. As 
respects us, his sufferings are substitutionary, since his divinity and his 
sinlessness enable him to do for us what we could never do for ourselves. 
Yet this substitution is also a sharing — not the work of one external to us, 
but of one who is the life of humanity, the soul of our soul and the life of 
our life, and so responsible with us for the sins of the race. 

Most of the recent treatises on the Atonement have been descriptions of the eifeots 
of the Atonement upon life and character, but have thrown no light upon the Atone- 
ment itself, if indeed they have not denied its existence. Wo must not emphasize the 
effects by ignoring the cause. Scripture declares the ultimate aim of the Atonement 
to be that God " might himMlf bo jnst " ( Ron. 8 : 26 ) ; and no theory -of the atonement will meet 
the demands of reason or conscience that does not ground its necessity in God's right- 
eousness, rather than in his love. We acknowledge that our conceptions of atonement 
have suffered some change. To our fathers the atonement was a mere historical fftct* 
a sacrifice offered in a few brief hours upon the Cross. It was a literal substitution of 
Christ's suffering for ours, the payment of our debt by another, and upon the ground 
of that payment we are permitted to go free. Those sufferings were soon over, and 
the hymn, ^ Love's Redeeming Work is Done,** expressed the believer's joy in a finished 
redemption. And all this is true. But it is only a part of the truth. The atonement, 
like every other doctrine of Christianity, is a fact of life ; and such facts of life cannot 
be crowded into our definitions, because they are greater than any definitions that we 
can frame. We must add to the idea of eyi)8tUution the idea of sharing, Christ's doing 
and suffering la not that of one external and foreign to us. He is bone of our bone, 
and fiesh of our flesh ; the bearer of our humanity ; yes, the very life of the race. 

(/) The historical work of the incarnate Christ is not itself the atone- 
ment, — it is rather the revelation of the atonement. The suffering of the 
incarnate Christ is the manifestation in space and time of the eternal suf- 
fering of God on account of human sin. Yet without the historical 
work which was finished on Calvary, the age-long suffering of God oould 
never have been made comprehensible to men. 

The life that Christ lived in Palestine and the death that he endured on Calvary were 
the revelation of a union with mankind which antedated the Fall. Being thus joined 
to us from the bcgrinnlng, he has suffered in all human sin ; " in all ou- ifflietiaii 1m liu htn 
alieted " ( Ii. 63 : 9 ) ; so that the Psalmist can say : "BlMud be the lord, who daily b«aroth oor bnrdo, 
eren the God who ii oor nlTation " ( Ps. 68 : 19 ). The historical sacrifice was a burning-glass which 
focused the diffused rays of the Sun of righteousness and made them effective in the 
melting of human hearts. The sufferings of Christ take deepest hold upon us only 
when we see in them the two contrasted but complementary truths : that holiness 
must make penalty to follow sin, and that love must share that penalty with the trans- 
gressor. The Cross was the concrete exhibition of the holiness that required, and of 



716 GHBISTOLOGY, OR THE DOCTRINE OF REDEMPTION. 

the love that provided, man's redemption. Those six hours of pain could never have 
procured our salvation if they had not been a revelation of eternal facts in the bein^ 
of Ood. The heart of God and the meanin^r of all previous history were then iinveiled. 
The whole evolution of humanity was there depicted in its essential elements, on the 
one hand the sin and condemnation of the race, on the other hand the grace and suffer- 
ing of him who was its life and salvation* As he who huni; upon the cross was God, 
manifest in the flesh, so the sufforiufr of the cross was God's suffering for sin, manifest 
in the flesh. The imputation of our sins to him is the result of his natural union with 
UB. He has been our substitute from the beginning. We cannot quarrel with the doc- 
trine of substitution when we see that this substitution is but the sharing of our griefs 
and sorrows by him whose very life pulsates in our veins. See A. H. Strong, Christ in 
CieaUon, 78 -a), 177-180. 

(^ ) The historical sacrifice of our Lord is not only the final revelation 
of the heart of God, but also the manifestation of the law of iiniyersal life 
— the law that sin brings suffering to all connected with it, and that we 
can overcome sin in ourselves and in the world only by entering into the 
fellowship of Christ's sufferings and Christ's victory, or, in other words, 
only by union with him through faith. 

We too are subject to the same law of life. We who enter into feUowship with our 
Lord "till up ... . tliat iHiioh is laeking of th« al&ictioiu of Ghrist .... for his bodj's ukt, vkioh Ib the dmnh " 
( GoL 1 : 24 ). The Christian Church can reign with Christ only as it partakes in his suffer- 
ing. The atonement becomes a model and stimulus to self-sacriflce, and a test of 
Christian character. But it is easy to see how the subjective effect of Christ's sacrifice 
may absorb the attention, to the exclusion of its ground and cause. The moral influ- 
ence of the atonement has taken deep hold upon our minds, and wo are in danger of 
forgetting that it is the holiness of God, and not the salvation of men, that primarily 
requires it. When sharing excludes substitution ; when reconciliation of man to Ood 
excludes reconciliation of God to man ; when the only peace secured is peace in the 
sinner's heart and no thought is given to that peace with God which it is the first 
object of the atonement to secure ; then the whole evangelical system is weakened, 
God's righteousness is ignored, and man is practically put in place of God. We must 
not go back to the old mechanical and arbitrary conceptions of the atonement,— we 
must go forward to a more vital apprehension of the relation of the race to Christ. A 
larger knowledge of Christ, the life of humanity, will enable us to hold fast the objec- 
tive nature of the atonement, and its necessity as grounded in the holiness of God ; 
while at the same time we appropriate all that is good in the modem view of the atone- 
ment, as the final demonstration of God's constraining love which moves men to repent- 
ance and submission. See A. H. Strong, Cleveland Address, 1904 : ld-18 ; Dinsmore, The 
Atonement in Literature and in Life, 213-2fi0. 

A. Scripture Methods of Representing the Atonement. 

We may classify the Scripture representations according as they conform 
to moral, commercial, legal or sacrificial analogies. 

( a ) MoBAib — The atonement is described as 

A provision originating in Ood^a love, and manifesting this love to the 
Tmiverse ; but also as an example of disinterested love, to secure our 
deliverance from selfishness. — In these latter passages, Christ's death is 
referred to as a source of moral stimulus to men. 

A provision: John 3 : i6~" for God wloTodtke world, that ho garo his only begotten Son"; Roin.5:8~**0od 
•wnmondiith hia own low toward na, In that, while we wen jet nnnen, Chiist died for na"; 1 John 4: 9 — "lenin 
was the lore of God manifested in ns, that God hath sent his onlj begotten Son into the world that we might Uto 
ttroo^ him" ; leb. 2: 9— " Jesos, beeaose of the suffering of dei^ erowned with glory and honor, that by the grsee 
of God he should taste of death for ereiy man"— redemption orii^inated in the love of the Father, 
as well as in that of the Son.— An example : Luke 9 : 22-24 — "TheSon of man mnst suffer ... and 
be killed. ... If any man would ooum after m^ let him .... take up Us eross daily, and follow me ... . whoeo- 
trer shall lose his life formy sake, the same shall sare it" ; 2 Oor. 5 : 15— "he died fbr all, that they that lireihoiald no 
longer liTt onto thsBsilTM"; G«L1:4— "gaTohimielf ftronr iia% that ht might deUftr u oat of this present 



THE PRIESTLY OFFICE OF CHBI8T. 717 

•Tllvarid"; IpL 5 :2S-Z7— "Christ ftlsoloTedth«ekiink,uidgaT0UBMlf opfcrit; thtt kt migkt naotiiy it"; 
(U. 1 : 22 — "reoiodlad in th« body of his fleih throofh doath, to pramt yoa holy'*; Titu 2 : 14 — "gaTO kioMlf ftr 
uv that h« ni^t redMm as from aU iniquity, and parifjr" ; 1 M. 2 : 21-24 — "Christ also mffered far yon, leaTing yoa 
an oxampK that ye ihoald foUov his steps: vho did no tin ... . vho his own self ban oar sins in his body opon tho 
tree^ that ve^ harin; died onto sins, mi^t lite onto rightaoosneas." Mason, Faith of the QospeU 181 — 
"A pious cottager, on bearing tbo text, *6od so lored the vorld,' exclaimed : *Ah, that was 
love I I could have given mjrself, but I could never have given my son.' '* There was 
a wounding of tho Father through the heart of the Son : "fhey shall kok nnto me vhoa ttsy 
have pimed ; and they shall noan for him, as one ■oometh ftr his only son *' (Zseh. 12 : 10 ). 

( 6 ) CJoMMEBCiAU — The atonement is described as 

A ransojn^ paid to free ns from the bondage of sin ( note in these pas- 
sages the use of avri^ the preposition of price, bargain, exchange ). — In 
these passages, Christ's death is represented as the price of our deliverance 
from sin and death. 



Hat 20 : 28. and Mark 10 : 45— "to giTe his lift a rsnsoB fiir aany "— Avrpoi^ iLvrX voAAmi^. 1 Tin. 2 : 6 — 
** vho gate himself a ransom ftr all " — ai^iAvrpoy. 'Arri ("for," in the sense of '' instead of *') is 
never confounded with w»<> ( "ftr," in the sense of ** in behalf of," '* for the benefit of "). 
'Am' is the preposition of price, bargain, exchange ; and this signification is traceable in 
every passage where it occurs in the N. T. See Vat 2 : 22 — " irohelaas vu nigninfl^ orer Jodea in 
theroomof[aFTi]hisftthflrEerod"; Lakell:U — "shall his son ask .... a ish. and he ftr [ arr^ <^ >*1» K^^* 
him a serpent?" leK 12 : 2— " Jesas the anther and perftoter of oor ftdth, vhe ftr [ am' => as the price of] 
the joy that vas set beftre him eadnred the cross "; 16 — " laao, who for [am — in exchange for]«noBeM 
of meat sold his own birthright" See also Hat 16 : 26 — "what shall a man giro in exAange ftr (ayr^[AAayM«) his 
life " — how shall he buy it back, when onoe he has lost i t ? * AmAvrpoy — substitutionary 
ransom. The connection in 1 Tim. 2 : 6 requires that vvtfp should mean ^ instead of." We 
should interpret this vvcp by the ^vri in Mai 20 : 28. *' Something befell Christ, and by 
reason of that, the same thing need not befall sinners *M E. T. MuHins). 

Meyer, on Mat 20 : 28 — " to giro his lift a ruisom for many " — ** The ^x^ ^ conceived of as Avrpof, 
a ransom, for, through tho shedding of the blood, it becomes theny^i ( price ) of redemp- 
tion." See also lCor.6:20;7:23 — "ye were bought with a price " ; and 2 Pet 2 : 1 — "denying eron tts 
Master that bought than." The word '* redemption,** indeed, means simply ^ repurchase,'* or 
*' the state of being repurchased "— i. e., delivered by the payment of a price. Rer. 5 : 9 ~ 
" thoa wast slain, and didst ponhase nnto God with thy blood men of ervy tribe." Winer, N. T. Grammar, 
258— '' In Greek, am is the preposition of price." Buttmann, N. T. Grammar, 321 — 
" In the signification of the preposition am (instead of, for), no deviation occurs from 
ordinary usage." See Grimm's Wilke, Lexicon GranxvLat. : *' am', in vicem^ atuiait " ; 
Thayer, Lexicon N. T. — " a¥rL^ of that for which anything is given, received, endured ; 
. ... of the price of sale (or purchase) Mat 20: 28"; also Cremer, N. T. Lex., on 

aKToAAay^a. 

Pfleiderer, In New World, Sept. 1809, doubts whether Jesus ever really uttered the 
words " giro his lift a ransom for many " ( Mat 20 : 28 ). He regards them as essentially Pauline, 
and the result of later dogmatic reflection on the death of Jesus as a means of 
redemption. So Paine, Evolution of Trinitarianism, 377-381. But these words occur 
not in Luke, the Pauline gospel, but in Matthew, which is much earlier. They repre- 
sent at any rate the apostolic conception of Jesus' teaching, a conception which Jesus 
himself promised should be formed under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who should 
bring all things to tho remembrance of his apostles and should guide them into all the 
truth (John 14 : 26 ; 16 : 13 ). As will be seen below, Pfleiderer declares the Pauline doctrine 
to be that of substitutionary suffering. 

( c ) Lboaii. — The atoDement is described as 

An act of obedience to the law which sinners had violated ; a penalty^ 
borne in order to rescue the guilty ; and an exhibition of Gk>d's righteous- 
ness, necessary to the vindication of his procedure in the pardon and resto- 
ration of sinners. — In these passages the death of Christ is represented 
as demanded by God's law and government. 



Obedience : OaL 4 : 4, 5 — " bom of a voman, bom under the law, that he idght redeem them that vers 
the law"; Mat8:15~*'thnsitbeeomethastofUfllaU righteooaeas " — Christ's baptism prefl«ured 



718 GHBISTOLOGY, OB THE DOCTBINE OF REDSHPTIOK. 

his death, and was a consecration to death ; r/. Mark iO : 38 — " in 76 aUe to drink tk« eop Oak I 
drink? or to ba baptiied vith th« b^tim that I am baptised with ? " Luke 12:50 — "I haToabaptiim tobebap- 
tiMdvith; and bow am I ftraitanwl tiU it be aooompliabed I " Hat M:39— *'M7F)^her,ifitbepofisibl^ Mtkiaoop 
pan Awaj from me : nererthalen, not as I vill, but as tbon vilt " ; 5 : 17 — "Think not that I came to deatroj the lav 
or the prophets : I oame not to destroj, but to fblfll " ; PhiL 2:8 — "beeoming obedient eren onto death " ; Ron. 5 : 19 
— *' throogh the obedienee of the one shall the many be made righteous"; 10 : 4— "Christ is the end of the lav nito 
righteoQsneas to erery one that belieTeth." — PenoZt]/: Rom. 4 : 25— "vhovas deliTered up for eor traspassei, 
and vas raised for oar jostiftoation " ; 8 : 3— "God, sending his ovn Son in the likeness of sinfiilfledi and for sin, oon- 
denned sin in the flesh " ; 2 Cor. 5 : 21 — " Elm vho knev no sin he made to be sin on eor behalf" — here "sin "« 
a sinner, an accursed one ( Meyer ) ; OaLl:4 — "gaTehims3lf for ear sins"; 3:13— "Christ rtdeesMd 
OS from the eorse of the lav, haTing beoome a onrae for ns ; for it is vritten, Corsed is erery one HuX hangeth on a 
trie"; c/.Deat21:23 — "hethatishangedisaoeuiedofGoi" Ieb.9:28— "Christ also, having been oneeoftovd 
to bear the sins of many"; c/.Ler. 5:17— "if any onesin. .. . yet is he gnilty, and shall bear his iniqoity ** ; Inm. 
14 : 34 —"for erery day a year, shall ye bear yoor iniquities^ OTen forty yean " ; Lam. 5 : 7~ "Dor fothen sinned 
and are not; And ve hare borne their im^mtlm." — ErhibUion : Rom. 8 : 25, 26— "vhom God set forth to 
be a propitiation, throogh foith, in his bkod, to diov his righteoosness booanse of the passing orer of the sins done afore- 
time, in the Ibrbearanoe of God " ; c/. leb. 9 : 15— "a death having taken plaoe for the redemption of the tranqpres- 
liotts that vers under the first ooTonanL" 

On these passagres, see an excellent section in Pfleiderer, Die Ritsohl'sche Theoloflrie, 
88-I&3. Pfleiderer severely criticizes Kitschl's evasion of their natural force and declares 
Paul's teachiner to be that Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law by suffer- 
ing as a substitute the death threatened by the law against sinners. So Orelli Cone, 
Paul, 361. On the other hand, L. L. Paine, Evolution of Trinitarianlsm, 28S-307, chapter 
on the Now Christian Atonement, holds that Christ taught only reconciliation on con- 
dition of repentance. Paul added the idea of mediation drawn from the Platonic dual- 
ism of Philo. The Epistle to the Hebrews made Christ a saorifldal victim to propitiate 
Ood, so that the reconciliation became God ward instead of man ward. But Professor 
Paine's view that Paul taught an Arian Medlatorshlp is incorrect. " God vas in Christ " ( 2 
Oor. 5 : 19 ) and God * manifosted in the flesh "( 1 Tim. 3 : 16 ) are the keynote of Paulas teaching, 
and this is identical with John's doctrine of the Logos : "the Word vas God," and " the Word 
beoame flesh "(John 1:1, 14). 

The Outlook, December 16, 1000, in criticizing Prof. Paine, states three postulates of 
the Now Trinitarianlsm as : 1. The essential kinship of God and man.— in man there is 
an essential divineness, in God there is an essential humanness. 2. The divine imma- 
nence,— this universal presence gives nature its physical unity, and humanity its moral 
unity. This is not pantheism, any more than the presence of man's spirit in all he 
thinks and does proves that man's spirit is only the sum of his experiences. 3. God 
transcends all phenomena,— though in all, he is greater than alL He entered perfectly 
into one man, and through this indwelling in one man he is gradually entering into all 
men and filling all men with his fulness, so that Christ will be the first-born among 
many brethren. The defects of this view, which contains many elements of truth, 
are : 1. That it regards Christ as the product instead of the Producer, the divinely 
formed man instead of the humanly acting God, the head man among men Instead of 
the Creator and Life of humanity; 2. That it therefore renders impossible any divine 
bearing of the sins of all men by Jesus Christ, and substitutes for it such a histrionic 
exhibition of God's feeling and such a beauty of example as are possible within the 
limits of human nature, —in other words, there is no real Deity of Christ and no 
objective atonement. 

{d) Sagbifioiaij. — The atonement is described as 

A work of priestly mediation, which reconcUes God to men, — notice 
here that the term ' reconciliation ' has its usual sense of removing enmity, 
not from the offending, but from the offended party ; — a sin-offering, pre- 
sented on behalf of transgressors ; — a propitiation, which satisfies the 
demands of violated holiness; — and a substitution, of Christ's obedience 
and sufferings for ours. — These passages, taken together, show that 
Christ's death is demanded by Ood's attribute of justice, or holiness, if sin- 
ners are to be saved. 

Priestly mediatitm: leb. 9 : 11 : 12— "Chriit hating oome a high priest, .... nor yet throogh the blood 
flf goau and ealtei, bat throogh hisovn blood, ent«r«d in onoe forallinto the hcdj plaoe, having obtained •tvoal : 




THB PRIESTLY OFFICE OF CHRIST. 719 

tlfls'* ; KoDL 5 : 10— "while ve vera enemiei, m wm r«ooiieil«d to God throo^h tiie daath of Ui Sen ** ; 2 Oor. 5 : 18, 
19 — " all things an of God, who raoneiled as to himielf through Chriit . . . . God wu in Christ neoneiliiig the wtrid 
onto himaelt not mkoning onto thorn their treqnnes" ; Iph. 2 : 16 — "might reoondle them both in one body onto 
God throogh the ortws, baring slain the enmity thereby " ; e/. 12, 13, 19— "strangers from the eorenantsof the ftmim 
.... ikr off .... no more strangers andsqjoamen, bat jeare fellow-otiiens with tiie saints, and of the household el 
God"; Ool 1:20 --''throogh him to reoondle aU things antohimseli; having made peaoe throogh the blood of his enM." 

On all these passages, see Meyer, who shows the meaning' of the apostle to be, that 
** we were 'enemies,' not actively, as hostile to God, but passively, as those with whom 
God was angry." The epistle to the Romans begins with the revelation of wrath 
against Gentile and Jew alike ( Rom. 1 : 18 ). " Vhile we were enemies " ( Rom. 5 : 10 ) « " when God 
was hostile to ns." " Reconciliation " Is therefore the removal of God's wrath toward 
man. Keycr, on this last passage, says that Christ's death does not remove man*s 
wrath toward God [ this is not the work of Christ, but of the Holy Spirit ]. The offender 
reconciles the person offended, not himself. See Dennoy, Com. on Rom. 5 : 9-11, hi Exposi- 
tor's Gk. Test. 

C/. lam. 25 : 13^ where Phlnehas, by slaying Zlmri, is said to have " made atonement for the chil- 
dren of Israel" Surely, the "atonement " here cannot be a reconciliation of laraeL The action 
terminates, not on the subject, but on the object — God. So, 1 Sam. 29 : 4 — " wherewith shoald 
this fellow reconcile himself onto his lord ? shoald it not be with the heads of these men?'* Kat 5:23,24 — ** If 
therefore thoo art offering thj gift at the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath anght against thee, lesTt 
there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way, lirst be reooneiled to thy brother [ U e., remove his enmity, not 
thine own ], and then come and offer thy gift" See Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2 : 387-^08. 

Ptleiderer. Die Rltschl'sche Theologie, 42— ** 'Ex^pol orrcf ( Rom. 5 : 10 ) — not the active 
disposition of enmity to God on our part, but our passive oondition under the enmity 
or wrath of God.'* Paul was not the author of this doctrine,— he claims that he 
received it from Christ himself ( Gal. 1 : 12 ). Simon, Reconciliation, 167 — *" The idea that 
only man needs to be reconciled arises from a false conception of the unchangcableness 
of God. But God would be unjust, if his relation to man were the same after his sin as 
it was before.'* The old hymn expressed the truth : ** My God is reconciled ; His par- 
doning voice I hear ; He owns me for his child ; I can no longer fear ; With filial trust 
I now draw nigh, And ' Father, Abba, Father ' cry.'* 

A gin-offeriuQ: John 1 : 29 — "Rehdd, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of tto worid** — here 
alpwv means to take away by taking or bearing ; to take, and so take away. It Is an 
allusion to the sin-offcriug of Isaiah 58 : 6-12 — " when thoa ahalt make his sool an offering for sin ... . 
as a lamb that is led to the sUoghter .... Jehovah hath laid on him the iniqaity of as alL" Kat 28:28— "this is 
my blood of the oorenant, which is poared oat for many onto remission of sins" ; e/. Fl 50 : 5— "made a eoTenaal 
with me by aachfloe." 1 John 1 : 7 — " the blood of Jeans his Son olesnseth as from all sin " — ■ not sanctiflcatlon, 
but Justification ; 1 Cor. 5 : 7— "oar passoTor also hath been saorilioed, eten Oirisk" ; c/. Deat 16 : 2-6— 
"thou Shalt sacriibe the passoTer onto Jehovah thy God." Iph. 5: 2 — "gave himself op for oi^ an oflMng and a n»* 
ri&oe to God for an odor of a sweet smell " ( see Com. of Salmond, In Expositor's Greek Testament) ; 
Heb. 9 : 14 — "the blood of Christ, who throogh the eternal Spirit offned himself withoat Uemish onto God" ; 22, 26— 
"apart frt>m shedding of blood there is no remissiott .... now ones in the end of the ages hath he been manifosted to 
put away sinby the saenfloe of himself"; 1 Pet. 1:18, 19 — "redeemed .... withpreeioasblood,asof alambwUh- 
oat blemish and withoat spot, oTon the blood of Christ." See Expos. Gk. Test, on Iph. i : 7. 

LoT7rie, Doctrine of St. John, 35, points out that John 6 : 62-A— " eateth my llesh and drinkelh 
my blood" — is Christ's reference to his death in terms of Bocrifice, So, as we shall see 
below, itisai>ropi/icUi(m(lJohn2:2). We therefore strongly object to the statement 
of Wilson, Gosi^el of Atonement, 04 — *' Christ's death Js a sacrifice, if sacrifice means 
the crowning instance of that suffering of the Innocent for the guilty which springs 
from the solidarity of mankind ; but there Is no thought of substitution or expiation.*' 
Wilson forgets that this necessity of suffering arises from God's righteousness ; that 
without this suffering man cannot be saved ; that Christ endures what we, on acooimt 
of the insensibility of sin, cannot feel or endure ; that this suffering takes the place of 
ours, so that we are saved thereby. Wilson holds that the Incarnation constituted the 
Atonement, and that all thought of expiation may be eliminated. Henry B. Smith 
far better summed up the gospel in the words : *' Incarnation in order to Atonement.'* 
We regard as still better the words : " Incarnation in order to reveal the Atonement." 

Avropiiiation: Kom. 3:25, 26— "whom God set forth to be a propitiation, ... in his blood ... that ht 
might himself be jost, and the jostifler of him that hath faith in Jeans." A full and critical exposition of 
this passage will be found under the Ethical Theory of the Atonement, pages 760-760. 
Here it is sufficient to say that it shows : ( 1 ) that Christ's death is a propitiatory sac- 
rifice; (2) that its first and main effect is upon God ; (8) that the putloular attribute 



720 CHRISTOLOQT, OR THE DOCTRINE OP REDEMPTIOK. 

in God which demands the atonement Is his justice, or holiness; (4) that the satis- 
faction of this holiness is the necessary condition of God's Justifyingr the believer. 

Compare Lake 18 : 13, marg.— "God, ba tlum merdfal nnto m« the nnner " ; lit. : "God be propitiatad toward 
me the sinner " — by the sacrifice, whose smoke was ascending before the publican, even 
while he prayed. Heb. 2 : 17 — "a merdfiil and fidthfol high priait in tliingt pertaining to God, to make pro- 
pitiation for the sine of tlie people " ; 1 John 2:2 — " and he is the {nropitiatioa for our sins ; and not for oononly, bat 
also for the whole world " ; 4 : 10 —"Herein is lore, not that we lored God, bat that he lored as, and sent his Son to be 
the propitiation for oar sins " ; r/. Gen. 32 : 20, lxx.— " I will aiq)ease [ c^iAaao/uiai, ' propitiate ' ] him with 
the present that goeth before me " ; Pror. 16 : 14, LXX. — "The wrath of a king is as menengert of death; but a via 
nan will padfy it " [ ef lAaaerai, * propitiate It ' ]. 

On propitiation, see Foster, Christian Life and Theology, 216 — ** Something was 
thereby done which rendered God inclined to pardon the sinner. God is made inclined 
to forgive sinners by the sacrifice, because his righteousness was exhibited by the 
infliction of the penalty of sin ; but not because he needed to be inclined in heart to 
love the sinner or to exercise his mercy. In fact, it was he himself who 'set forth' 
Jeeus as 'a propitiation ' ( Rom. 3 : 2S, 28 )." Paul never merges the objective atonement in its 
subjective effects, although no writer of the New Testament has more fully rccogrnized 
these subjective effects. With him Christ fitr us upon the Cross Is the necessary prep- 
aration for Christ in us by his Spirit. Gould. Bib. Theol. N. T.. 74, 75, 89, 172, unwar- 
rantably contrasts PauPs representation of Christ as priest with what he calls the 
representation of Christ as prophet in the Epistle to the Hebrews : " The priest saj-s : 
Man's return to God is not enough,— there must be an expiation of man's sin. This is 
Paul's doctrine. The prophet says : There never was a divine provision for sacrifice. 
Man's return to God is the thing wanted. But this return must be completed* Jesus 
is the perfect prophet who gives us an example of restored obedience, and who comes 
in to perfect man's imperfect work. This is the doctrine of the Epistle to the Hebrews." 
This recognition of expiation In Paul's teaching, together with denial of its validity 
and interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews as prophetic rather tlian priestly, is a 
curiosity of modem exegesis. 

L>'man Abbott, Theology of an Evolutionist, 107-127, groes still further and affirms: 
•* In the N. T. God is never said to be propitiated, nor is it ever said that Jesus Christ 
pr(>i)itiates God or satisfies God's wrath." Yet Dr. Abbott adds that in the N. T. God 
is represented as self-propitiated : '^ Christianity is distinguished from paganism by 
representing God as appeasing his own wrath and satisfying his own justice by the 
forth-putting of his own love.'^ This self-propitiation however must not be thought 
of as a bearing of penalty : *^ Nowhere in the O. T. is the idea of a sacrifice coupled 
with the idea of penalty,— it is always coupled with purification — 'with his stripes we are 
healed' (Is. 53: 5). And in the N. T., 'the Lamb of God .. . taketh awaj the sin of the world' (John i: 29); 
*the blood of Jesas . . . oleanseth' ( 1 John 1:7).... What humanity needs is not the removal of 
the penalty, but removal of the sin." This seems to us a distinct contradiction of both 
Paul and John, with whom propitiation is an essential of Christian doctrine (see Rom. 
8 : 25 ; 1 John 2:2), while we grant that the propitiation is made, not by sinful man, but 
by God himself in the person of his Son. See George B. Gow, on The Place of Expia* 
tion in Human Redemption, Am. Jour. Theol., 19(X) : 734-756. 

A gul}8titution : Lake 22: 37 — "he was reckoned with tran^ressors " : cf. Ler. 16:21,22 — "and Aaron 
■hall laj both his hands apon the head of the lire goat, and oonfess orer him all the iniqaitias of the ohildren of Israel 
, ... he shall pat them npon the head of the goat .... and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniqoitiet anto a 
solitarj land " ; Is. 53 : 5, 6 — " he was woonded for onr truisgrassioDS, he was braised for oar iniqaitiee ; the chastise- 
ment of our peace was npon him ; and with his stripes we are healed, ill we like sheep hare gone astraj ; we hare 
tamed every one to his own waj ; and JehoTah hath laid on him the iniqaitj of as alL" John 10 : 11 — "the good 
shepherd Itjeth down his life for the sheep " ; Rom. 5:6-8 — " while we were jet weak, in dae season Christ died for 
the ongodl J. For scarcelj for a righteons man will one die : for peradrentiue lor the good man some one woald eren dare 
to die. But God eommendeth his own lore toward as, in that, while we were jet sinners, Chiist died for us" ; 1 Pet. 
8 : 18 — "Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the nnrighteoos, that he might bring us to Gol" 

To these texts we must add all those mentioned under ( h ) above, in which Christ's 
death is described as a ransom. Besides Meyer's comment, there quoted, on Mat 20 : 28— 
** to give his life a ransom tar many," kvrpov afxl voWtav — Meyer also says : ** avrC denotes substi- 
tution. That which is given as a ransom takes the place of, is given instead of, those 
who are to be set free in consideration thereof. 'Avri can only be understood in the sense 
of substitution in the act of which the ransom is presented as an equivalent, to secure 
the deliverance of those on whose behalf the ransom is paid, — a view which is only 
oonflrmed by the fact that, in other parts of the N. T., this ransom is usually spoken of 
as an expiatory sacrifice. That which they [ those for whom the ransom is paid] are 




THE PRrESTLT OFFICE OF CHRIST. 721 

redoemcHl from, is the? eternal iiniAeio in which, as having the wrath of God abidlnflr 
upon them, they would remuin imprisoned, as in a state of hopeless bondage, unless 
the Kuilt of their sins were expiated." 

Cromer, N. T. Lex., says that " in both the N. T. texts. Mat 16 : 26 and Hwk 8 : 87, the 
word at^aAAay/uia, llkc Xvrpov^ is akin to the conception of atonement : c/. la. 43 : 3, 4; 51 : 11; 
iinos 5 : 12L This is a confirmation of the fact that satisfaction and substitution essen- 
tially belong to the idea of atonement.** Dorner« Olaubenslehre, 2 : 515 ( Syst. DocL, 
3 : 414 )— '' lUt 20 : 28 contains the thought of a substitution. While the whole world is 
not of equal worth with the soul, and could not purchase it, Christ's death and work 
arc so valuable, that they can serve as a ransouL." 

The sufferings of the righteous were recognized in Rabbinical Judaism as having a 
substitutionary significance for the sins of others ; see Weber, Altsynagog. Palestin. 
Theologie, 314 ; Schtirer, Geschichte des jUdischcn Volkes, 2 : 466 ( translation, div. II, 
vol. 2 : 186 ). But Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, 2 :'225-262, says this idea of vicarious sat- 
isfaction was an addition of Paul to the teaching of Jesus. Wendt grants that both 
Paul and John taught substitution, but he denies that Jesus did. He claims that ivrl 
in lUt 20 : 28 means simply that Jesus gave his life as a means whereby he obtains the 
deliverance of many. But this interpretation is a non-natural one, and violates linguis- 
tic usage. It holds that Paul and John misunderstood or misrepresented the words of 
our Lord. We prefer the frank acknowledgment by Pfleiderer that Jesus, as well as 
Paul and John, taught substitution, but that neither one of them was correct. Cole- 
stock, on Substitution as a Stage in Theological Thought, similarly holds that the idea 
of substitution must be abandoned. We grant that the idea of substitution needs to 
be supplemeotcd by the idea of sharing, and so relieved of its external and mechanical 
implications, but that to abandon the conception itself is to abandon faith in the evan- 
gelists and in Jesus himself. 

Dr. W. N. Clarke, in his Christian Theology, rejects the doctrine of retribution for 
sin, and denies the possibility of penal suffering for another. A proper view of penalty, 
and of Christ's vital connection with humanity, would make these rejected ideas not 
only credible but inevitable. Dr. Alvah Hovoy reviews Dr. Clarke's Theology, Am. 
Jour. Theology, Jan. 1899 : 205— " If we do not import into the endurance of penalty 
some degree of sinful feeling or volition, there is no ground for denying that a holy 
iHiing may bear it in place of a sinner. For nothing but wrong-doing, or approval 
of wrong-doing, is impossible to a holy being. Indeed, for one to bear for another the 
Just penalty of his sin, provided that other may thereby be saved from it and made a 
friend of God, is perhaps the highest conceivable function of love or good-will." Den- 
ney. Studies, 126, 127, shows that "substitution means simply that man is dependent for 
his acceptance with God upon something which Christ has done for him, and which be 
could never have done and never needs to do for himself. • . • The forfeiting of his free 
life has freed our forfeited liv(*s. This substitution can be preached, and it binda 
men to Christ by making them forever dependent on him. The condemnation of our 
sins in Christ upon his cross is the barb on tliehook,— without it your bait will be taken, 
but you will not catch men ; you will not annihilate pride, and make Christ the Alpha 
and Omega in man's redemption.'* On the Scripture proofs, see Crawford, Atonement, 
1:1-198; Dale, Atonement, 66-256; Philippi, Glaubenalehre, iv. 2: 243-342; Smeaton, 
Our Lord's and the Apostles* Doctrine of Atonement. 

An examination of the passages referred to shows that, while the forms 
in which the atoning work of Clirist is described are in part derived from 
moral, commercial, and legal relations, the prevailing language is that of 
sacriiice. A correct view of the atonement must therefore be grounded 
upon a x)roper interpretation of the institution of sacrifice, especially as 
found in the Mosaic system. 

The question is sometimes asked : Why is there so little in Jesus* own words about 
atonement ? Dr. K. W. Dale replies : Because Christ did not come to preach the gospel, 
— he came that there might be a gospel to preach. The Cross had to be endured, 
before it could be explained. Jesus came to be the sacrifice, not to speak about it. 
But his reticence is just what he told us wo should find in his words. He proclaimed 
their incompleteness, and referred us to a subsequent Teacher— the Holy Spirit. The 
testimony of the Holy Spirit we have in the words of the apostles. We must remem- 
ber that the gospels were supplementary to the epiatles, not the epistles to the gospels. 

46 



722 CHBISTOLOGY, OB THE DOCTRINE OF BEDEMPTION. 

The (gospels merely All out our knowledge of Christ. It is not for the Kedecmer to 
magnify the cost of salvation, but for the redeemed. " None of the ransomed ever 
knew.*' The doer of a great deed has the least to say about it. 

Hamack : ** There is an inner law which compels the sinner to look upon God as a 
wrathful Judge. . . . Yet no other feeling Is possible.'* We regard this cx)nfe8sion as 
a demonstration of the p8>chological correctness of Paul's doctrine of C^ vicarious 
atonement. Human nature has been so constituted by God that it reflects the demand 
of his holiness. That conscience needs to be appeased is proof that God needs to be 
appeased. When Whiton declares that propitiation is offered only to our conscience, 
Wiiich is the wrath of that which is of God within us. and that Christ bore our sins* 
not in substitution for us, but in feUowship with us, to rouse our consciences to hatred 
of them, he forgets that God is not only immanent in the conscience but also tran- 
sccDdent, and that the verdicts of conscience are only indications of the higher verdicts 
of God: 1 John 8:20— ** if oorluarteoodemiiiu, God if gnittr than ovlMait,axidknowetka^ Lyman 

Abbott, Theology of an Evolutionist, 57— ** A people half emancipated from the pagan- 
ism that imagines that God must be placated by sacrifice before he can forgive sins 
gave to the sacrificial ssrstem that Israel had borrowed from paganism the same 
divine authority which they gave to those revolutionary elements in the sjrstem which 
were destined eventually to sweep it entirely out of existence." So Bowne, Atone- 
ment, 74 — ** The essential moral fact is that, if God is to forgive unrighteous men, some 
way must be found of making them righteous. The difficulty is not forensic, but 
moraL** Both Abbott and Bowne regard righteousness as a mere form of benevolence, 
and the atonement as only a means to a utilitarian end, namely, the restoration and 
happiness of the creature. A more correct view of God's righteousness as the funda- 
mental attribute of his being, as inwrought into the constitution of the universe, and 
as inf aUibly connecting suffering with sin, would have led these writers to see a divine 
wisdom and inspiration in the institution of sacrifice, and a divine necessity that God 
should suffer if man is to go free. 

B. The Institation of Sacrifice, more espedallj as fonnd in the Mosaic 
system. 

( a ) We may dismiss as untenable, on the one hand, the theory that 
sacrifice is essentially the presentation of a gift ( Hofmann, Baring-Oould ) 
or a feast ( Spencer ) to the Deity ; and on the other hand the theory that 
sacrifice is a symbol of renewed fellowship ( Eeil ), or of the grateful offer- 
ing to God of the whole life and being of the worshiper ( Bahr )• Neither 
of these theories can explain the fact thafc the sacrifice is a bloody offering, 
involving the suffering and death of the victim, and brought, not by the 
simply grateful, but by the conscience-stricken souL 

For the views of sacrifice here mentioned, see Hofmaim, Schriftbeweis, n, 1 : 214-2M ; 
Baring-Gould, Origin and Devel. of Bclig. Belief, 368-380; Spencer, De Legibus Hebrse- 
orum ; Keil, Bib. ArchUologie, sec. 43, 47 ; BKhr, Symbolik des Mosaischen €hiltus,2: 
196, 269 ; also synopsis of Btthr's view, in Bib. Sac, Oct. 1870 : 503 ; Jan. 1871 : 171. Per 
contra, see Crawford, Atonement, 228-240 ; Laoge, Introd. to Com. on Exodus, 38— "The 
heathen change God's symbols into myths ( rationalism ), as the Jews change God*s sac- 
rifices into meritorious service ( ritualism ).*' Westcott, Hebrews, 281-294, seems to 
hold with Spencer that sacrifice is essentially a feast made as an offering to God. So 
Philo : " God receives the faithful offerer to his own table, giving him bacic part of the 
sacrifice.'* Compare with this the ghosts in Homer's Odyssey, who receive strength 
from drinking the blood of the sacrifices. BUhr's view is only half of the truth. Beun- 
ion presupposes Expiation. Lyttleton, in Lux Mundi, 281— *' The sinner must first 
expiate his sin by suffering, — then only can he give to God the life thus purified by an 
expiatory death." Jahn, Bib. Archaeology, sec 373, 378— " It is of the very Idea of the 
sacrifice that the victim shall be presented directly to God, and in the presentation 
shall be destroyed.'* Bowne, Philos. of Theism, 263, speaks of the delicate feeling of 
the Biblical critic who, with his mouth full of beef or mutton, professes to be shocked 
at the cruelty to animals involved in the temple sacrifices. Lord Bacon : " Hiero- 
glyphics came before letters, and parables before arguments.*' " The old dispensatiorv 
was God's great parable to man. The Theocracy was graven all over with divine hlero- 
gljrphios. Does there exist the Kosetta stone by which we can read these hieroglyphics ? 



THE IKSTITUTIOK OF 8ACBIF1CB. 723 

The shadows, that have been shortening up into deflnitoness of outline, pass away and 
vanish utterly imder the full meridian splendor of the Sun of Kighteousness.'* On lpk> 
i : 7— "tkt blood of GhriBt," as an expiatory saorifloe which secures our justification, see Sal- 
mond, in Expositor's Greek Testament. 

( 6 ) The true import of the sacrifice, as ib abnndantlj evident from both 
heathen and Jewish sources, embraced three elements, — first, that of satis- 
faction to offended Deity, or propitiation offered to violated holiness ; seo- 
ondly, that of substitution of suffering and death on the part of the innocent, 
for the deserved punishment of the guilty ; and, thirdly, community of life 
between the offerer and the victim. Combining these three ideas, we have 
as the total import of the sacrifice : Satisfaction by substitution, and 
substitution by incorporation. The bloody sacrifice among the heathen 
expressed the consciousness that sin involves guilt ; that guilt exposes man 
to the righteous wrath of God ; that without expiation of that guilt there 
is no forgiveness ; and that through the suffering of another who shares his 
life the sinner may expiate his sin. 

Luthardt, Compendium der Do^matik, 170, quotes fromNilcelsbach, Naohhomerische 
Theologle, 838 sq. — ** The essence of punishment is retribution ( Verfireltun^ ), and retri- 
bution is a fundamcnt€U law of the world-order. In retribution lies the atoninflr power 
of punishment. This consciousness that the nature of sin demands retribution, in 
other words, this certainty that there is in Deity a rierhteousness that punishes sin, 
taken in connection with the oonsciousness of personal trans^rression, awakens the 
longing for atonement,"— which is expressed in the sacrifice of a slaughtered beast. 
The Greeks recoirnized representative expiation, not only in the sacrifice of beasts, but 
in human sacrifices. See examples in Tyler, Theol. Ok. Poets, 106, 107, 2i5-S53 ; see also 
Virgil, .£neld, 6 : 815 — " Unum pro multis dabitur caput " ; Ovid, Fasti, vi — " Cor pro 
corde, precor ; pro fibrls sumite fibras. Hanc animam vobis pro meliore damns." 

Stahl, Christliche Philosophie, 146 — *^ Every unpervertod conscience declares the 
eternal law of riflrhtoousness that pimishment shall foUow inevitably on sin. In the 
moral realm, there is another way of satisfyingr ri^rhteousness—that of atonement. 
This differs from punishment in its effect, that is, reconciliation, — the moral authority 
assertiner itself, not by the destruction of the offender, but by takin^r him up into itself 
and uniting itself to him. But the offender cannot offer his own sacrifice, — that must 
be done by the priest.'* In the Prometheus Bound, of .^sohylus, Hermes says to 
Prometheus : ^* Hope not for an end to such oppression, until a god appears as thy 
substitute in torment, ready to descend for thee into the un illumined realm of Hades 
and the dark abyss of Tartarus.** And this is done by Chiron, the wisest and most just 
of the Centaurs, the son of Chronos, sacrificing himself for Prometheus, while Her- 
cules kills the eagle at his breast and so delivers him from torment. This legend of 
.^Eschylus is almost a prediction of the true Bedeemer. See article on Sacrifice, by 
Paterson, in Hastings, Bible Dictionary. 

Westcott, Hebrews, 282, maintains that the idea of expiatory offerings, answering to 
the consciousness of sin, does not belong to the early religion of Greece. We reply 
that Homcr*s Iliad, in its first book, describes just such an expiatory offering made to 
Phoebus Apollo, so turning away his wrath and causing the plague that wastes 
the Greeks to cease. £. G. Robinson held tliat there is ** no evidence that the Jews had 
any idea of the efficacy of sacrifice for the expiation of moral guilt.** But in approach- 
ing either the tabernacle or the temple the altar always presented itself before the 
laver. H. Clay Trumbull, S. 8. Times, Nov. 90, 1001: 801— ** The Passover was not a 
passing by of the houses of Israelites, but a passing over or crossing over by Jehovah 
to enter the homes of those who would welcome him and who had entered Into covo> 
nant with him by sacrifice. The Oriental sovereign was accompanied by his execu- 
tioner, who entered to smite the flrst-bom of the house only when there was no 
covenanting at the door.** We regard this explanation as substituting an incidental 
result and effect of saorifloe for the sacrifice itself. This always had in It the idea of 
reparation for wrong-doing by substitutionary suffering. 

Curtis. Primitive Semitic Religion of To-day, on the Significance of Sacrifice, 218-SS37, 
tells us that he went to Palestine prepossessed by Bobertson Smithes explanation that 



724 CHRI8T0L0GY, OB THE DOCTRINE OP BEDEMPTIOJT. 

■aciifloe was a feast symbolizing friendly communion between man and his Ck>d. He 
oame to the conclusion that the sacrificial meal was not the primary element, but that 
there was a substitutionary value in the offering. Gift and feast are not excluded ; but 
these are sequences and incidentals. Misfortune is evidence of sin ; sin needs to be 
expiated ; the anger of Ood needs to be removed. The saorifloe consisted principally 
in the shedding of the blood of the victim. The '* bursting forth of the blood " satis* 
fled and bought off the Deity. George Adam Smith on Iniak 53 ( 2 : 364 ) — ** Innooent as 
be is, he gives his life as a satisfaction to the divine law for the guilt of bis people. 
His death was no mere martyrdom or miscarriage of human Justice : in God*s intent 
and purpose, but also by its own voluntary offering, it was an expiatory sacriflce. 
There is no exegete but agrees to this. 863 ~ The substitution of the servant of Jeho- 
vah for the guilty people and the redemptive force of that substitution are no arbi- 
trary doctrine.** 

SatUtf action means simply that there is a principle in Ck>d*s being which not simply 
refuses sin passively, but also opposes it actively. The Judge, if he be upright, must 
repel a bribe with indignation, and the pure woman must flame out in anger against 
an infamous proposal. K. W. Emerson : ** Your goodness must have some edge to it, 
—else it is none.** But the Judge and the woman do not enjoy this repelling, — they 
suffer rather. So God's satisfaction is no gloating over the pain or loss which he is 
compelled to inflict. God has a wrath which is calm. Judicial, inevitable— the natural 
reaction of holiness against unholiness. Christ suffers both as one with the inflicter 
and as one with those on whom punishment is inflicted: " for Orist also plauidiMiUiBaaif; 
bntfttitif vritt«ii,TlierBproachMofth«aithAtr«pi)MlMdthMfiBll(miiM'' (Ron. 15: 3; c/. Pi 68: 9). 

( c ) In consideriDg the exact purport and efficacy of the Mosaic sacri- 
fices, we must diBtingiiish between their theocratical, and their spiritnaly 
offices. They were, on the one hand, the appointed means whereby the 
offender could be restored to the outward place and privileges, as member 
of the theocracy, which he had forfeited by neglect or transgression ; and 
they accomplished this purpose irrespectiyely of the temper and spirit 
with which they were offered. On the other hand, they were symbolic of 
the vicarious sufferings and death of Christ, and obtained forgiveness and 
acceptance with God only as they were offered in true penitence, and 
with faith in God's method of salvation. 

Itb. 9 : 13, 14 — " for if th« blood of poats and bulla, and the aahM of a haillgr qrinklin; than that haro ban ddDad, 
■UMtiiy onto the eleannaa of the iledi: hov mnoh more ihall the blood of Chrii^ vho through th« eternal Spirit offered 
kinielf withoat blemiih nnto God, cleanse yoor oonecianoe from dead works to aerre the liTiog God?" iO:M — 'But 
ia thoee laoriiioea there ia a remembrance made of lina jear hj jear. F« it is impoaaible that the blood of bolls and 
goata should take nvay ains." Christ's death also, like the O. T. saorifloes, works temporal 
benefit even to those who have no faith ; see pa^es 771, 778. 

Uobertson, Early lielij{ion of Israel, 441, 448, answers the contention of the higher 
oritics that, in the days of Isaiah, Mlcah, Hosea, Jeremiah, no Levltical code existed ; 
that those prophets expressed disapproval of the whole sacriflclal system, as a thing of 
more human device and destitute of divine sanction. But the Book of the Covenant 
surely existed in their day, with its command : " in altar of earth ahalt thoa make onto m^ and 
Shalt aaorifloe thereon ikj bamt-<>ff6rings " ( b. 20 : 24 ). Or, if it is maintained that Isaiah oondenmed 
even that early piece of logislation, it proves too much, for it would make the prophet 
also condemn the Sabbath as a piece of will-worship, and even reject prayer as dis- 
pleasing to Ood, since in the same connection he says : "nev moon and Sabbath .... I cannot 
avaj with .... when je apread forth joor hands, I vill hide mine ejes firam yon" (la. 1 : 13-15 ). Isaiah 
was condemning simply hcartlcas saoriflce ; else we make him condemn all that went 
on at the temple. Mlcah 6:8—" what doth Jehorah require of thee, but to do joaUy ? " This does not 
exclude the offering of sacrifice, for Micah anticipates the time when "the moontain d 
JehoTah'a hooae shall be established on the top of the moontain^ .... And many nations shall go and saj, Gome yt 
and let OS go np to the mountain of Jehovah ** (Mieah 4 : 1, 2 > Eos. 6 : 6— "I desire goodnet^ and not saoiAoe^" is 
interpreted by what follows, "and the knowledge of Ood mne than burnt-offerings." Compare Pror. 
8:10; 17 : 12 ; and Samuers words : "to obey is bettor than saerilioe" ( 1 Sam. 15 : 22 ). What was the 
altar from which Isaiah drew his description of Ood*s theophany and from which was 
taken the live coal that touched his lips and prepared him to be a prophet? ( Is. 6 : 1-8 ). 
Jar. 7 : 22~"Ispake not ... . eonoeming bnnit-<>ffenngs or saorifloes .... but this thing .... Hearken nnto my 
foiflik" Jeremiah insists only on the worthlessness of saoriflce where there Is no heart. 




THE INSTITUTION OF SACRIFICE. 725 

(d) Thus the Old Testament sacrifices, when rightly ofifered, involved a 
consciousness of sin on the part of the worshiper, the bringing of a victim 
to atone for the sin, the laying of the hand of the offerer upon the victim's 
head, the confession of sin by the offerer, the slaying of the beast, the 
sprinkling or pouring-out of the blood upon the altar, and the consequent 
forgiveness of the sin and acceptance of the worshiper, '/he sin-offering 
and the scape-goat of the great day of atonement symbolized yet more dis- 
tinctly the two elementary ideas of sacrifice, namely, satisfaction and sub- 
stitution, together with the consequent removal of guilt from those on 
whose behalf the sacrifice was offered. 

Lev. 1:4 — " And he shall laj hit hand apon Uu head of the bnnt-offering ; and it shall be aooepted for hin, to 
make atonement for him " ; 4 : 20 — " Ans shall he do with the bollock ; as he did with the bollook of the sin^ifferiBg, 
80 shall he do with this ; and the priest shall make atonement for them, and thej shall be forgiTen" ; so 31 and 85 — 
' and the priest shall make atonement for him as tonching his sin that he hath sinned, and he shall be forgiren " ; so 
5 : 10, 16 ; 6:7. Lot. 17 : U — " For the life of the flesh is in the blood ; and I hare given it to joa upon the altv to 
make atonement for yonr sools : for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life." 

The patriarchal sacrifices wero sin-offorinfi^s, as the sacrifloe of Job for bis friends 
witnesses : Job 42 : 7-9 — " Mj wrath is kindled against thee [ Eliphaz ] . . . . therefore, take onto jon 
soTen bolloeks .... and offer np for yoarsehes a bnmt-offering " ; c/. 33 : 24 — "Then God is gradoos nnto him, and 
s&ith, Delirer him from going down to the pit, I hare fonnd a ransom" ; 1 : 5 — Job offered bumt-offerlngs 
for his sons, for ho said, "It maj be that mj sons hare sinned, and renoonoed God in their hearts " ; Gen. 8 : 20 
— Noah " offered bnxnt-offerings on the altar" ; 21 — "and JehoTah imelled the sweet savor; and JehoTah said ii 
his heart, I will not again enne the groond any more for man's sake." 

That vicarious suffering is intended in all these sacrifices. Is plain from Ler. 16:1-34— 
the account of the sin-offeringr and the scape-groat of the great day of atonement, the 
full meaning of which we give below ; also from Gen. 22 : 13 — " Abraham went and took the rui, 
and offered him np for a bnmtH>ffering in the stead of his son" ; Bz. 32 : 30-32 — where Mos»s says: "Te haTs 
sinned a great sin : and now I will go np nnto JehoTah ; pendTentnre I shall make atonement for jonr sin. And Motet 
returned nnto Jehovah, and said, Oh, this people hare sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. Tet now, 
if then wilt forgire their sin — ; and if not, blot m^ I pray thee, oat of thy book which thon hast written." See 
U.180 Deni 21 : 1-9 — the expiation of an uncertain murder, by the sacrifice of a heifer, — 
where Oehler, O. T. Theology, 1 : 389, says : " Evidently the punishment of death in- 
curred by the manslayer is executed symbolically upon the heifer." In Is. 53 : 1-12— " All we 
like sheep hare gone astraj ; we have tnmed erery one to his own way ; and JehoTah hath laid on him the inifoi^ of 
us all ... . stripes .... offering for sin " — the ideas of both satisfaction and substitution are 
still more plain. 

Wallace, Ilepresentative Responsibility: ^ The animals offered in sacrifice must be 
animals brought Into direct relation to man, subject to him, his property. They could 
not be spoils of the chase. They must bear the mark and impress of humanity. Upon 
the sacrifice human hands must be laid — the hands of the offerer and the hands of the 
priest. The offering is the substitute of the offerer. The priest is the substitute of the 
offerer. The priest and the sacrifloe were one symhcL [ Hence, in the new dispensation, 
the priest and the sacrifice are one —both are found in Christ. ] The high priest must 
enter the holy of holies with his own finger dipped in blood : the blood must be in con- 
tact with his own person, —another Indication of the identification of the two. Life is 
nourished and sustained by life. AU life lower than man may be sacrificed for the good 
of man. The blood must be spilled on the ground. ' In the blood is the life.' The life Is 
re8er\'ed by God. It is given for man, but not to him. Life for life is the law of the 
creation. So the life of Christ, also, for our life. — Adam was originally priest of the 
family and of the race. But he lost his representative character by the one act of 
disobedience, and his redemption was that of the Individual, not that of the race. The 
race ceased to have a representative. The subjects of the divine government were 
henceforth to be, not the natural offering of Adam as such, but the redeemed. That 
the body and the blood are both required, indicates the demand that the death should 
be by a violence that sheds blood. The sacrifices showed forth, not Christ himself [ his 
character, his life], but Christ's death." 

This following is a tentative scheme of the Jewish Sacrifices. The general reason 
for sacrifice is expressed in Ler. 17 : 11 ( quoted above). I. For the individual: 1. The 
sin-offering — sacrifloe to expiate sins of ignorance ( thoughtlessness and plausible 
temptation ): Lot. 4 : 14, 20^ 31. 2. The trespass-offering — sacrifice to expiate sins of omis- 



i 



726 GHBISTOLOQY, OB THE DOCTBINB OF BEDEMFTION. 

Blon : Irr. 5:6^ & S. The bumt-offerinfir— saorifloe to expiato general sbifaliieflB: htt, i:l 
( the offerinsr of Mary, Lak* 2 : 24 ). II. For the famUy : The Paasover : Ix. 12 : 27. III. For 
the people: 1. The daily momingr and eveninir saorifloe : Ix. 29 : 8846. 2. The offering of 
the great day of atonement : Irr. 16 : 6-10. In this last, two vlctima were employed, one 
to represent the means— deaths and the other to represent the result— forgiveneaa. 
One victim oould not represent both the atonement— by shedding of blood, and the 
Justification— by putting away sin. 

Jesufl died for our sins at the PasBoyer feast and at the hour of dally saortfloe. 
McLaren, in 8. 8. Times, Nov. 80, 1901 : 801— ^ Shedding of blood and consequent safety 
were only a part of the teaching of the Passover. There is a double Identilioation of 
the person offering with his sacrifice : first, in that he offers it as his representative, 
laying his hand on its head, or otherwise transferring his personality, as it were, to it ; 
and secondly, in that, receiving it back again from God to whom he gave it, he feeds 
on it, so making it part of his life and nourishing himself thereby : 'My flaih .... irkidi I 
wingiT«....&rtluliftofthavorid....h«tbat«iUth]iia,h«aIioiliaUUT»beeiiM (John 6: 51, 57).'* 

Chambers, in Presb. and Bef . Bev., Jan. 1892 : 22-34 — On the great day of atonement 
** the double offering— one for Jehovah and the other for Azazol— typified not only 
the removing of the guilt of the people, but its transfer to the odious and detestable 
being who was the first cause of its existence," i. e., Satan. Lidgett, Spir. Principle 
of the Atonement, 112, 113 — **It was not the punishment which the goat bore away 
into the wilderness, for the idea of punishment is not directly associated with the scape- 
goat. It bears the sin — the whole unfaithfulness of the commimlty which had defiled 
the holy places— out from them, so that henceforth they may be pure. .... The sin- 
offering —representing the sinner by receiving the burden of his sin — makes expiation 
by 3ielding up and yielding back its life to Gkxl, under conditions which represent at 
onoo the wrath and the placability of Ood.** 

On the Jewish sacrifices, see Fairbalm, Typology, 1:200-£B3; WUnsche, Die Leiden 
des Messias ; Jukes, O. T. Sacrifices ; Smeaton, Apostle*s Doctrine of Atonement, 25-53 ; 
Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship of O. T., 120 ; Bible Com., 1 : 503-^506, and Introd. to Leviticus ; 
Candlish on Atonement, 123-142; Weber, Vom Zome Gottes, 161-180. On passages in 
Leviticus, see Com. of Knobel, in Exeg. Handb. d. Alt. Test. 

(e) It is not essential to this view to maintain that a formal divine insti- 
tation of the rite of sacrifice, at man's expulsion from Eden, can be proved 
from Scripture. Like the family and the state, sacrifice may, without such 
formal inculcation, possess divine sanction, and be ordained of God. The 
well-nigh universal prevalence of sacrifice, however, together with the fact 
that its nature, as a bloody ofiering, seems to preclude man's own invention 
of it, combines with certain Scripture intimations to favor the view that it 
was a primitive divine appointment. From the time of Moses, there can 
be no question as to its divine authority. 

Compare the origin of prayer and worship, for which we find no formal divine injunc- 
tions at the be^nnings of history. EeK 11 : 4 — " By fluth AM oinred unto God a mors exMUent turlAoe 
tkaa Oun, through whioh ha h>d irHtiua borne to him that ha vaa rightaoui^ God bearing witneai in reipaet of his 
gifts** ~ here it may be argued that since Abel's faith was not presumption, it must have 
had some injunction and promise of Ood to base itself upon. 6«n. 4 : 3, 4 — " Cain brought of 
tha fruit of tha ground an offering vnto Jehovah. And Abei, oa also brooght of the firstUngi of hit floek and of tha ftt 
tkurntt And Jehorah had respaet nnto Abel and to his offaring: bat unto Cain and to his offering ha had not rmptdC* 

It has been urged, in corroboration of this view, that the previous existence of sacri- 
fice is intimated in Gan. 8 : 21 — "And Jehorah God made far Adam and far his wife eoats of skin% and elothed 
th«L** Since the killing of animals for food was not permitted until long afterwards 
(6on.9:8— toNoah: "Srery moving thing that liTeth shall ba food for 70a"), the inference has been 
drawn, that the skins with which Ood clothed our first parents were the skins of 
animals slain for sacrifice,— this clothing furnishing' a type of the righteousness of 
Christ which secures our restoration to Ood's favor, as the death of the victims fur> 
nisbed a tsrpe of the sulTering of Christ which secures for us remission of punishment. 
We must regard this, however, as a pleasing and possibly correct hjrpothcsis, rather 
than as a demonstrated truth of Scripture. Since the unpervertod instincts of human 
nature are an expression of Ood's will, Abel's faith may have consisted in trustinflr 
these, rather than the promptings of selfishness and self-righteousness. The death of 




THE INSTITUTION OF 8ACRIFICB. 727 

RDimals in sacriflce, like the death of Christ which it sigrnifled, was only the hastening 
of what belougt'd to them because of their connection with human sin. Faith recog- 
nized this connection. On the di\ine appointment of sacrifice, see Park, in Bib. Sac, 
Jan, 1876 : 103-132. Westcott, Hebrews, 281 — "There is no reason to think that sacrl- 

floe was instituted in obiKlience to a direct revelation It is mentioned in Scripture 

at first as natural and known. It was practically universal in prcchristian times. ... In 
due time the popular practice of sacrifice was regulated by revelation as disciplinary, 
and also used as a vehicie for typical teaching.** We prefer to say that sacrifice proba- 
bly originated in a fundamental instinct of humanity, and was therefore a divine 
ordinance as much as were marriage and government. 

On Gen. 4 : a, 4, see C. H. M. — '* The entire ditference between Cain and Abel lay, not in 
their natures, but in their sacrifices. Cain brought to God the sin-stained fruit of a 
cursed earth. Here was no recognition of the fact that ho was a sinner, condemned to 
death. All his toil could not satisfy God's holiness, or remove the penalty. But Abel 
recognized his sin, condemnation, helplessness, death, and brought the bloody sacrifice 
— the sacrifice of another — the sacrifice provided by God, to meet the claims of God. 
He found a substitute^ and he presented it in faith — the faith that looks away from 
seif to Christ, or God*s appointed way of salvation. The difference was not In their 
persons, but in their gifts. Of Abel it is said, that Qod 'bore vitnan in mpect of lui gifti* 
(H«b. 11 : 4 ). To Cain it is said, ' if thoa doeit veil ( ucx. : ipduf irpoircvcyKi^— if tboa offerest oorreetfy ) 
BhjJt thoa not be acoepted?* But Cain desired to get away from God and from God's way, 
and to lose himself in the world. This is ' the mj of Gain * ( Jade 11 )." Per contra^ see Craw- 
ford, Atonement, 259 — ** Both in Levitical and patriarchal times, we have no formal 
institution of sacrifice, but the regulation of sacrifice already existing. But Abel's 
faith may have had respect, not to a revelation with regard to sacrificial worship, but 
with regard to the promised Redeemer; and his sacrifice may have expressed that 
faith. If so, God's acceptance of it gave a divine warrant to future sacrifices. It was 
not will-worship, because it was not substituted for some other worship which Gk>d 
had previously instituted. It is not necessary to suppose that God gave an expressed 
command. Abel may have been moved by some inward divine monition. Thus Adam 
said to E\'e, ' This is nov bone of mj bones ....'( Gen. 2 : 23 ), before any divine command of mar- 
riage. No fruits were presented during ttie patriarchal dispensation. Heathen sacri- 
fices were corruptions of primitive sacrifice." Von Lasaulx, Die BOhnopfer der 
GriechcnundKUmer, undihr Verhttltniss zu dem einen auf Golgotha, 1 — "The first 
word of the orighuil man was probably a prayer, the first action otfaUen man a sacrl- 
flco " ; see translation in Bib. Sac, 1 : 868-408. Bishop Butler : " By the general preva- 
lence of propitiatory sacrifices over the heathen world, the notion of repentance alone 
being sufilcient to expiate guilt appears to be contrary to the general sense of man- 
kind.'* 

(/) The New Testament assumes and presupposes the Old Testament 
doctrine of sacrifice. The sacrificial language in which its descriptions of 
Christ's work are clothed cannot be explained as an accommodation to 
Jewish methods of thought, since this terminology was in large part in 
common use among the heathen, and Paul used it more than any other of 
the apostles in dcaHng with the Gentiles. To deny, to it its Old Testament 
meaning, when used by Now Testament writers to describe the work of 
Christ, is to deny any proper inspiration both in the Mosaic appointment 
of sacrifices and in the apostolic interpretations of them. We must there- 
fore maintain, as the result of a simple induction of Scripture facts, that 
the death of Christ is a vicarious oflfering, provided by God's love for the 
pur|)ose of satisf^dng an internal demand of the divine holiness, and of 
removing an obstacle in the divine mind to the renewal and pardon of 
sinnera 

'* The epistle of James makes no allusion to sacrifice. But he would not have failed 
to allude to it, if he had held the moral view of the atonement ; for it would then have 
Ix-on an obvious help to his argument against merely formal service. Christ protested 
against washing hands and keeping Sabbath days. If sacrifice had been a piece of 
human formality, how Indignantly would he have inveighed against it I But InB**^^ 



728 CHRISTOLOOY, OB THB DOCTRIXE OF REDEMPTION. 



of this be reoeired from John the Baptist, without rebuke, the words : - itwl d. t^ Lksb il 
Qd, t^ tak«lk avtj Ut ni oftkc vwld' (i<k^i : 29 -." 

A. A. Hodge, Popular Lectures, 347— '*Tbe aacrifloes of buUs and goats were like 
tokeo-money, as our paper-promises to pay, accepted at their face-^alue till the day of 
flettiement. But the sacrifice of Christ was the gold which absolutely extinguished all 
debt by its intrinsic value. Hence, when Christ died, the veil that separated man from 
Ood was rent from the top to the bottom by supernatural hands. When the real expi- 
ation was finished, the whole sjrmbolical system representing it became .fun^um oMciOt 
sod was abolished. Soon after this, the temple was razed to the ground, and the ritual 
was rendered forever impoasible." 

For denial that Christ's death is to be interpreted by heathen cr Jewish sacrifices, see 
ICaarioe on Sac., 154 — ** The heathen signification of words, when applied to a Christian 
Qte, must be not merely modified, but inverted " ; Jowett, Epistles of St. Paul, 2 : 479 — 
** The heathen and Jewish sacrifices rather show us what the sacrifice of Christ was not, 
than what it was." Bushnell and Young do not doubt the expiatory nature of heathen 
Mcrifioes. But the main terms which the N. T. uses to describe Christ's sacrifice are 
borrowed from the Greek sacrificial ritual, e. g^ dv<ria, irpmr^opdL, cAao^moc, «7tA^«, m^^mlpm^ 
tAa«r«oM^. To deny that these terms, when applied to Christ, imply expiation and sub- 
stitution, is to deny the inspiration of those who used them. See Gave, Scripture Doo- 
trine of Sacrifice ; art. on Sacrifice, in Smith's Bible Dictionary. 

With all these indications of our dissent from the modem denial of expiatory sacri- 
floe, we deem it desirable by way of contrast to present the clearest possible statement 
of the view from which we dissent. This may be found in Pfleiderer, Philoeophy of 
Religion, 1 :238, 260, 261—"* The gradual distinction of the moral from the ceremonial, 
the repression and ultimate replacement of ceremonial expiation by the moral purifica- 
tion of the sense and life, and consequently the transformation of the mystical concep- 
tion of redemption into the corresponding ethical conception of education, may be 
designated as the kernel and the teleological principle of the development of the hi»> 
tory of religion. .... But to Paul the question in what sense the death of the Cross 
oould be the means of the Messianic redemption found its answer simply from the pre- 
suppositions of the Pharisaic theologryt which beheld in the innocent suffering, and 
especially in the martyr-death, of the righteous, an expiatory means compensating 
for the sins of the whole people. What would be more natural than that Paul should 
contemplate the death on the Cross in the same way, as an expiatory means of salvation 
for the redemption of the sinful world ? 

** We arc thus led to see in this theory the symbolical presentment of the truth that 
the new man suffers, as it were, vicariously, for the old man ; for he takes upoo himself 
the daily pain of self -subjugation, and bears guiltlessly in patience the evils which the 
old man could not but necessarily impute to himself as punishment. Therefore as 
Christ is the exemplification of the moral idea of man, so his death is the symbol of that 
moral process of painful self -subjugation in obedience and patience, in which the true 

Inner redemption of man consists In like manner Fichte said that the only proper 

means of salvation is the death of selfhood, death vHth Jesus, regeneration. 

*' The defect in the Kant-Fichtean doctrine of redemption consisted in this, that it 
limited the process of ethical transformation to the individual, and endeavored to 
explain it from his subjective reason and freedom alone. How could the Individual 
deliver himself from his powerlessness and become free ? This question was unsolved. 
The Christian doctrine of redemption is that the moral liberation of the indi\idual is 
not the effect of his own natural power, but the effect of the divine Spirit, who, from 
the beginning of human history, put forth his activity as the power educating to the 
good, and especially has created for himself in the Christian community a permanent 
organ for the education of the people and of individuals. It was the moral individual- 
ism of Kant which prevented him from finding in the historically realized oommon 
spirit of the good the real force available for the individual becoming good**' 

C. Theories of the Atonement. 

Isi The Socinian^ or Example Theory of the Atonement. 

This theory holds that subjective sinfulness is the sole barrier between 
man and God. Not God, but only man, needs to be reconciled. The only 
method of reconciliation is to better man's moral condition. This can be 
effected by man's own will, through repentance and reformation. The 



SOCINIAN THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. 729 

death of Christ is but the death of a noble martyr. He redeems us, only 
as his human example of faithfulness to truth and duty has a }>owerfn^ 
influence upon oiur moral improvement. This fact the apostles, either 
consciously or unconsciously, clothed in the language of the Greek and 
Jewish sacrifices. This theory was fully elaborated by Laelius Socinus and 
Faustus Socinus of Poland, in the 16th oentmy. Its modem advocates 
are found in the Unitarian body. 

The Soclnian theory may be found stated, and advocated, in Bibliotheoa Fratmm 
Polononim, 1:566-600; Martincau, Studies of Christianity, 83-176; J. F. Clarke, Ortho- 
doxy, Its Truths and Errors, 235-266 ; Ellis, Unitarianism and Orthodoxy ; Sheldon, Sin 
and Redemption, 140-210. The text which at first sifirht most soems to favor this view 
is 1 P6t 2 : 21 — " Christ alto soffarad for joo, leftTing jon an exAmpl^ that j« ihonld foUov his steps.'* But see 
under ( e ) below. When Corregf^o saw Itaphuel's picture of St. Cecilia, he exclaimed : 
*' I too am a painter.*' So Socinus held that Christ's example roused our humanity 
to imitation. He regarded expiation as heathenish and Impossible; every one must 
receive according: to his deeds ; God is ready to grant forgivenoss on simple repentance. 

E. G. Kobinson, Christian Theology, 277 — " The theory first insists on the inviola- 
bility of moral sequences in the conduct of every moral agent ; and then insists that, 
on a given condition, the consequences of transgression may be arrested by almighty 

flat Unitarianism errs in giving a transforming power to that which works 

beneficently only after the transformation has been wrought." In ascribing to human 
nature a power of self-reformation, it ignores man's need of regeneration by the Holy 
Spinit. But even this renewing work of the Holy Spirit presupposes the atoning work 
of Christ. "Te most be bora ansv" ( Jdin 3:7) necessitates "Eren so most the Son of nan be lifted up" 
(John 3 : 14 ). It is only the Cross that satisfies man's instinct of reparation. Hamack, 
Das Wesen des Christenthums, 99— " Those who regarded Christ's death soon ceased to 
bring any other bloody offering to God. This is true both in Judaism and in heathen- 
ism. Christ *s death put an end to all bloody offerings in religious history. The impulse 
to sacrifice found its satisfaction in the Cross of Christ." We regard this as proof that 
the Cross is essentially a satisfaction to the divine Justice, and not a mere example of 
faithfulness to duty. The Socinian theory is the first of six theories of the Atonement, 
which roughly correspond with our six previously treated theories of sin, and this first 
theory includes most of the false doctrine which appears in mitigated forms in several 
of the theories following. 

To this theory we make the following objections : 

( a ) It is based ux>on false philosophical principles, — as, for example, that 
will is merely the faculty of volitions ; that the foundation of virtue is in 
utility ; that law is an expression of arbitrary will ; that penalty is a means 
of reforming the offender ; that righteousness, in either God or man, is 
only a manifestation of benevolence. 

If the will is simply the faculty of volitions, and not also the fundamental determi- 
nation of the being to an ultimate end, then man can, by a single volition, effect his 
own reformation and reconciliation to God. If the foundation of virtue is in utility, 
then there is nothing in the divine being that prevents pardon, the good of the crea- 
ture, and not the demands of God's holiness, being the reason for Christ's suffering. 
If law is an expression of arbitrary will, instead of being a transcript of the divine 
nature, it may at any time be dispensed with, and the sinner may be pardoned on mere 
repentance. If penalty is merely a means of reforming the offender, then sin does 
not involve objective guilt, or obligation to suffer, and sin may be forgiven, at any 
moment, to all who forsake it, —indeed, mu»t be forgiven, since punishment is out of 
place when the sinner is reformed. If righteousness is only a form or manifestation of 
benevolence, then God can show his benevolence as easily through pardon as through 
penalty, and Christ's death is only intended to attract us toward the good by the foroe 
of a noble example. 

Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, 2 : 21S-264, is essentially Socinian in his view of Jesus' death. 
Yet he ascribes to Jesus the idea that suffering is necesmi'yy even for one who stands 
in perfect love and blessed fellowship with God, since earthly blessedness is not the 



730 CHBISTOLOGT, OB THI DOCTRDrE OF KSDEMPnOV. 

tme bleandneM, and ainoe a tme pfeCy It imposfUe wftiioat reomiGiatkm and atoop- 
ing to minister to others. The eartlily iife-sacriflce of the VftffaiH was his neoeaazy 
and greatest act, and was the culminating point of his teaching. Suffering made him 
a perfect example, and so ensured the suooess of his work. But why God should have 
made it neoeanry tliat the lioliest must suffer, Wendt does not explain. This conetito- 
tton of things we can understand only as a revelatiOQ of the holineas of God, and of 
his punitive relation to human sin. Simon, Reconrftiation, a57, shows well that exam- 
ple might have sufBced for a race that merely needed leadership. But what the race 
needed most was energizing, the fulfilment of the conditions of restoration to God oo 
their behalf by one of themselves, by one whose very easenoe they shared, who created 
them, in whom they consisted, and whose work was therefore their work. Christ con- 
demned with the divine condemnation the thoughts and impulses arising from his sul>- 
oonscious life. Before the sin, whidi for the moment seemed to be his, could become 
his, he condemned it. He sympathized with, nay, he revealed, the very justice and 
•orrowof God. Ietanvi2:16-18-**'rarT«il7BittouistlsMkktsiT«Wlp.batktginaki^tetlMiMd0f 
AbnkaiL llffrfon it bakoorti kiM ii aQ ftint to bt ai^ likt ibI» kit kfttiu, ttiil k« ai^ baeoM a b^^ 
■aiftatkfUkigkpriMtiBtkiiipp«tiiiiiKtoGod,teBiik«|npitiatM Fwiiteftk«kna- 

Mlf kUk nfmd bdiV taiyldl, ka it abk to iMoar tkn tkat an tMrtoi.** 



(6) It is a natnral ontgrowih from the Pelagian view of sin^ and logi- 
cally necessitates a cnrtailment or stirrender of every other characteristio 
doctrine of Christianity — inspirationy sin, the deity of Christy justification, 
regeneration, and eternal veiaibntion. 

llieSociniantheoryrequireBasiiRenderof the doctrine of inspiration; for the idea 
of vicarious and expiatory sacrifice is woven into the very warp and woof of the Old 
•nd New Testaments. It requires an abandonment of the Scripture doctrine of sin ; 
for in it all idea of sin as perversion of nature rendering the sinner unable to save 
himself, and as objective guilt demanding satisfaction to the divine hoUness, is denied. 
It requires us to give up the deity of Christ ; for if sin is a slight evil, and man can save 
himself from its penalty and power, then there is no longer need of either an infinite 
suffering or an infinite Savior, and a human Christ is as good as a divine. It requires 
us to give up the Scripture doctrine of Justification, as God's act of declaring the sinner 
just in the eye of the lr,w, solely on account of the righteousness and death of Christ 
to whom he is united by faith ; for the Sodnian theory cannot permit the counting to 
a man of any other righteousness than his own. It requires a denial of the doctrine of 
regeneration ; for this is no longer the work of God, but the work of the sinner ; it is 
no longer a change of the affections below consciousness, but a self -reforming volition 
of the sinner himself. It requires a denial of eternal retribution ; for this is no longer 
appropriate to finite transgression of arbitrary law, and to superficial sinning that does 
not involve nature. 

( c ) It contradicts the Scripture teachings, that sm involves objective 
G»nilt as well as subjective defilement ; that the holiness of God must punish 
Bin ; that the atonement was a bearing of the punishment of sin for men ; 
and that this vicarious bearing of punishment was necessary, on the part of 
God, to make jwssible the showing of favor to the guilty. 

The Scriptures do not make the main object of the atonement to be man's subjective 
moral improvement. It is to God that the sacrifice is offered, and the object of it is to 
•atisf y the divine holiness, and to remove from the divine mind an obstacle to the show- 
ing of favor to the guilty. It was something external to man and his happiness or 
virtue, that required that Christ should suffer. What Emerson has said of the martyr 
*• yet more true of Christ : " Though love repine, and reason chafe. There comes a voice 
^thout reply, *T is man's perdition to be safe. When for the truth he ought to die." 
The truth for which Christ died was truth internal to the nature of God ; not simply 
^"^th externalized and published among men. What the truth of God required, that 
Christ rendered — full satisfaction to violated Justice. ** Jesus paid it all " ; and no obedi- 
enoo or righteousness of ours can be added to his work, as a ground of our salvation. 

B. O. Kobinson, Christian Theology, 276 — ** This theory falls of a due recognition of 
that doep-scated, universal and innate sense of ill-desert, which in all times and every- 
where has prompted men to aim at some expiation of their guilt. For this sense of 



SOOINIAN THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. 731 

grnllt and its requirements the moral influence theory makes no adequate provision, 
either in Christ or in those whom Christ saves. Supposing Christ's redemptive work to 
consist merely in winnin^r men to the practice of righteousness, it takes no account of 
penalty, either as the sanction of the law, as the reaction of the divine holiness against 
sin, or as the upbraiding of the individual conscience. . . . The Sodnian theory over- 
looks the fact that there must be some objective manifestation of Gkkl's wrath and dis- 
pleasure against sin.** 

(d) It f nmiahes no proper explanation of the Bufferings and death of 
Christ The rinmartyrlike anguish cannot be accounted for, and the for- 
saking by the Father cannot be justified, upon the hypothesis that Ohrist 
died as a mere witness to truth. If Christ's sufferings were not propitia- 
tory, they neither furnish us with a perfect example, nor oonstitate a mani- 
festation of the love of God. 

Compare Jesus* feeling, in view of death, with that of Paul : " Ufiag tke dtiin to dfptit ** 
(PhiLl:23). Jesus was filled with anguish: "How if mjMol troobkd; and vbiftdMll I aaj? Hiku, 
nre me from this hour'* (John 12: 27). If Christ was Simply a martjrr, then he is not a perfect 
example ; for many a martyr has shown greater courage in prospect of death, and tn 
the final agony has been able to say that the fire that consumed him was "a bed of 
roses.'* Gethsemane, with its mental anguish, is apparently recorded in order to indi- 
cate that Christ's sufferings even on the cross were not mainly physical sufferings. 
The Roman Catholic Church unduly emphasises the physical side of our Lord's pas- 
sion, but loses sight of its spiritual element. The Christ of Rome indeed is either a 
babe or dead, and the crudfiz presents to us not a risen and living Redeemer, but a 
mangled and lifeless body. 

Stroud, in his Physical Cause of our Lord's Death, has made it probable that Jesus 
died of a broken heart, and that this alone explains John 19 : 84 — "om ^tko nldiin witk a ipofty 
pieroed hit lido, and itraightvaj thoro ouno oat blood and vatar " — i. e., the heart had already been rup- 
tured by grief. That grief was grief at the forsaking of the Father ( .Hat 27 : 46 — " My 
God, mj God, whj hast thoa fonaken mo ? "), and the resulting death shows that that forsaking was 
no imaginary one. Did Ood make the holiest man of all to be the greatest sufferer of 
all the ages ? This heart broken by the forsaking of the Father means more than mar- 
tyrdom. If Christ's death is not propitiatory, it fills me with terror and despair ; for 
it presents me not only with a very imperfect example in Christ, but with a proof of 
measureless injustice on the part of Ood. Uko 23 : 28— ** vatp not ftr m^ tat vatp ftir joomlTit** 
« Jesus rejects all pity that forgets his suffering for others. 

To the above view of Stroud, Westoott objects that blood does not readily flow from 
an ordinary corpse. The separation of the red corpuscles of the blood from the serum, 
or water, would be the beginning of decomposition, and would be inconsistent with 
the statement in Icta 2 : 3i — " naither did hit iloah laa oormption.'* But Dr. W. W. Keen of Phila- 
delpliia, in his article on The Bloody Sweat of our Lord ( Bib. Sac, July, 1807 : d6IM84) 
endorses Stroud's view as to the physical cause of our Lord*s death. Christ's being for- 
saken by the Father was only the culmination of that relative withdrawal which con- 
stituted the source of Christ's lonelinoas through life. Through life he was a servant of 
the Spirit. On the cross the Spirit left him to the weakness of unassisted humanity, 
destitute of conscious divine resources. Compare the curious reading of ]Mi^2:9— 
" tbftt he apart from God ( xwptf ecoO ) ahoold taito daath ftr oToiy man." 

If Christ merely supposed himself to be deserted by Ood, ^ not only does Christ 
become an erring man, and, so far as the predicate deity is applicable to him, an erring 
God ; but, if he cherished unfounded distrust of Ood, how can it be possible still to 
inaiutain that his will was in abiding, perfect agreement and identity with the will 
of God ? " See Kant, Lotze, and Ritschl, by Stithlin, 219. Charles C. Everett, Oospel of 
Paul, says Jesus was not crucified because he was accursed, but he was accursed 
l>ecausc he was crucified, so that, in wreaking vengeance upon him, Jewish law abro- 
gated itself. This interpretation however contradicts 2 Ov. 5 : 21 — " Elm vko knev no iIb ka 
made to be sin on oar behalf"— where the divine identification of Christ with the race of sin- 
ners antedates and explains bis sufferings. John i : 29 — ** the Lamb of God, that takeCh avay the lia 
of the vorld " — docs not refer to Jesus as a lamb for gentleness, butas a lamb for sacrifice. 
Maclaron: ''How docs Christ's death prove Ood*B love? Only on one supposition, 
namely, that Christ is the incarnate Son of Ood, sent by the Father's love and being 
his express ima^e '* ; and, we may add, suffering vicariously for us and rembving the 
obstacle in Gkxl*s mind to our purdon. 



732 CHRI8T0L0GY, OR THE DOCTRINB OF REDEMPnON. 

(e) The influence of Christ's example is neither declared in Scripture, 
nor found in Christian experience, to be the chief result secured by his 
death. Mere example is but a new preaching of the law, which repels and 
condemns. The cross has x>ower to lead men to holiness, only as it first 
shows a satisfaction made for their sin& Accordingly, most of the passages 
which represent Christ as an example also contain references to his propi- 
tiatory work. 

There to no virtae in simply setting an example. Christ did nothingr, simply for the 
sake of example. Even his baptism was the 83nmbol of his propitiatory death : see 
pages 761, 703. The apostle*B exhortation is not *' abstain from all appearance 
of evil ** (1 AflK 5 : 22, A. Vers.), but "abttain from erny form of erU " ( Rev. Vers. ). Christ's 
death is the payment of a real debt due to Ood ; and the convicted sinner needs first to 
see the debt which he owes to the divine justice paid by Christ* before he can think 
hopefully of reforming his life. The hymns of the church : " I lay my sins on Jesus," 
and ** Not all the blood of beasts," represent the view of Christ's sufferings which 
Christians have derived from the Scriptures. When the sinner sees that the mortgage 
is cancelled, that the penalty has been borne, he can devote himself freely to the ser- 
vice of his Redeemer. Rar. 12 : 11 — "tbej OTerame him [ Satan ] bMaom of tk« blood ctfh» Lamb" *■ 
as Christ overcame Satan by his propitiatory sacrificet so we overcome by appropriate 
ing to ourselves Christ *s atonement and his Spirit ; cf. 1 John 5 : 4 — " this it tho Tidory th&t hatk 
onnoma tho vorid, eren oarfkith." The very text upon which Socinians most rely, when it is 
taken in connection with the context, proves their theory to be a misrepresentation of 
Scripture, i Pet 2 : 21 — "Christ also soffored for joo, Inring joa an ezampl^ that je should ibUov his st«ps** 
— is succeeded by Terse 24 — " vho his own self bare our sins in his bodj upon the tree, that ve, haying died 
Ukto sins, mi^t lire nnto righteoosDem ; by vhose stripes je vere healed " — the latter words being a direct 
quotation from Isaiah's description of the substitutionary sufferings of the Messiah 
(Is. 53:5). 

When a deeply convicted sinner was told that Ood could cleanse his heart and make 
him over anew, he replied with righteous impatience : ** That is not what I want, — 1 
have a debt to pay first 1 " A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 28, 80 — " Nowhere in 
tabernacle or temple shall we ever find the laver placed before the altar. The altar is 
Calvary, and the laver is Pentecost, —one stands for the sacrificial blood, the other for 
the sanctifying Spirit. ... So the oil which symbolized the sanctifying Spirit was 
always put ' upon the blood of the trespass-offerin; * ( Lev. 14 : 17 ).'* The extremity of Christ's suffer- 
ing on tbe Cross was coincident with the extremest manifestation of tho guilt of the 
race. The greatness of this he theoretically knew from the beginning of his ministry. 
His baptism was not intended merely to set an example. It was a recognition that sin 
deserved death ; that he was numbered with the transgressors ; that he was sent to die 
for the sin of the world. He was not so much a teacher, as he was the subject of all 
teaching. In him the great suffering of the holy God on account of sin is exhibited to 
the universe. The pain of a few brief hours saves a world, only because it sets forth 
an eternal fact in God's being and opens to us God's very heart. 

Shakespeare, Henry V, 4 : 1— "There is some soul of goodness in things evil. Would 
men observingly distil it out." It is well to preach on Christ as an example. Ljrman 
Abbott says that Jesus* blood purchases our pardon and redeems us to God, Just as a pat- 
riot's blood redeems his country from servitude and purchases its liberty. But even 
Rltschl, Just, and Reoon., 2, goes beyond this, when he says : *^ Those who advocate the 
example theory should remember that Jesus withdraws himself from imitation when 
he sets himself over against his disciples as the Author of forgiveness. And they 
perceive that pardon must first be appropriated, before it is possible for them to 
imitate his piety and moral achievement." This is a partial recognition of the truth 
that the removal of objective guilt by Christ's atonement must precede the removal 
of subjective defilement by Christ's regenerating and sanctifying Spirit. Lidgctt, Spir. 
Princ. of Atonement. 265-280, shows that there is a fatherly demand for satisfaction, 
which must be met by the filial response of tbo child. Thomas Chalmers at the begin" 
ning of his ministry urged on his people the reformation of their lives. But he con- 
fesses : *• I never heard of any such reformations being effected amongst them." 
Only when he preached the alienation of men from God, and forgiveness through the 
blood of Christ, did ho hear of their betterment. 

Gordon, Christ of To-day. 120— " The consciousness of sin is largely the creation of 
Uhrist.*' Men like Paul« Luther, and Edwards show this impressively. Foster, Chris- 



BUSHNELLIAK THEORY OF THE ATON'EMENT. 733 

tian life and Theoloiory, 10B-201 — '' There is of course a sense in which the Christian 
must imitate Christ's death, for ho is to 'take up kis oroa dulj ' ( Lake 9 : 23 ) and follow his 
Master ; but in its hifrhost meaningr and fullest scope the death of Christ is no more 
an object set for our imitation than is the creation of the world. . . . Christ does for 
man in his sacrifice what man could not do for himself. We see in the Cross : 1. the 
matniHude of the guilt of sin ; 3. oiur own self-condemnation ; 3. the adequate remedy* 
— for the object of law is gained in the display of righteousness ; 4. the objeotiye 
ground of forgiveness." Maclaren : ** Cturistianity without a dying Christ is a dying 
Christianity." 

(/) This theory contradicts the whole tenor of the New Testament, in 
making the life, and not the death, of Christ the most significant and 
iiuportant feature of his work. The constant allusions to the death of 
Christ as the source of our salvation, as well as the efjmbolism of the ordi- 
nances, cannot be explained uix>n a theory which regards Christ as a mere 
example, and considers his sufferings as incidents, rather than essentials, 
of his work. 

Dr. H. B. Hackett frequently called attention to the fact that the reoording in the 
go8|)el8 of only three years of Jesus* life, and the prominence given in the record to the 
oiosing scenes of that life, are evidence that not his life, but his death, was the great 
work of our Lord. Christ's death, and not his life, is the central truth of Christianity. 
The cross is par cxceUence the Christian symboL In both the ordinances— in Baptism 
as well as in the Lord's Sup[>er— it is the death of Christ that is primarily set forth. 
Neither Christ's example, nor his teaching, reveals Ood as does his death. It is the 
deat h of Christ that links together all Christian doctrines. The mark of Christ's blood 
is upon them all, as the scarlet thread running through every cord and rope of the 
British navy gives sign that it is the property of the crown. 

Did Jesus' death have no other relation to our salvation than Paul's death had? 
Paul was a martjT, but his death is not even recorded. Gould, Bib. Theol. N. T., 02— > 
*' Paul does not dwell in any way upon the life or work of our Lord, except as they are 
involved in his death and resurrection." What did Jesus' words : "It is iniahed"(Joh]i 19:80) 
mean ? What was finished on the Socinian theory ? The Socinian salvation had not 
yet begun. Wtiy did not Jesus make the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper 
to be memorials of his birth, rather than of his death ? Why was not the veil of the 
temple rent at his baptism, or at the Sermon on the Mount ? It was because only his 
detith opened the way to Ood. In talking with Nioodemus, Josus brushed aside the 
complimentary : " ve knov that thou irt a tauhtr oome from God " ( John 8:2). Recognizing Jesus 
as t<;acher is not enough. There must be a renewal by the Spirit of Ood, so that one 
n>cM)gnizes also the lifting up of the Son of man as atoning Savior (John 8 : 14, 15 ). And 
to Peter, Jesus said : "Ifl vuhthe«iiflt,tkoiibastnoptrt vithma" (JohnlSrS). One cannot have 
part with Christ as Teacher, while one rejects him as Bedecmer from sin. On the 
Socinian doctrine of the Atonement, see Crawford, Atonement, 2T9-S90 ; Shedd, History 
of Doctrine, 2 : 37&-386 ; Doctrines of the Early Socinians, in Princeton Basays, 1 :19i-ai; 
Philippi, Olaubeuslehre, IV, 2:166-180; Fook, Socinianismus. 

2nd. The Bnshnellian, or Moral Influence Theory of the Atonement. 

This holds, like the Socinian, that there is no principle of the divine 
nature which is propitiated by Christ's death; but that this death is a mani- 
f estiition of the love of God, suffering in and with the sins of his creatures. 
Christ's atonement, therefore, is the merely natural consequence of his 
taking human nature upon him ; and is a suffering, not of penalty in man's 
stead, but of the combined woes and griefs which the living of a human 
hfe involves. This atonement has effect, not to satisfy divine justice, but 
so to reveal divine love as to soften human hearts and to lead them to 
ro]:)entance ; in other words, Christ's sufferings were necessary, not in order 
to remove an obstacle to the pardon of sinners which exists in the mind of 
God, but in order to convince sinners that there exists no such obsta- 
cle. This theory, for substance, has been advocated by Bushnell, in 



734 CHRISTOLOOY, OB THE DOCTRIJTE OF REDEMPTION. 

America ; l>y Bolx^rtson, Maorice, Campbell, and Yomig, in Great Britain ; 
bj Schleiermacher and Ritschl, in Germany. 

Oiigen and Abelard are earlier representatiyes of this view. It mar be found stated 
In Bushneil's Vicarious Sacrifice. Bushnell's later work. Forgiveness and Law, oon- 
tains a modification of his earlier doctrine, to which he was driven bj the criticisms 
upon his Vicarious Sacrifice. In the later work, he acknowledges what he had so 
strenuously dtmied in the earlier, namely, that Christ's death has effect upon God as 
well as upon man, and that Crod cannot forgive without thus ^ making cost to himself.*' 
He makes open confession of the impotence of his former teaching to convert sinners, 
and, as the only efficient homUetic, he ivcommends the preaching of the very doctrine 
of propitiatory sacrifice which he had written his book to supersede. Even in For- 
giveness and Law, however, there is no recognition of the true principle and ground of 
the Atonement in God's punitive holiness. Since the original form of Bushneil's doc- 
trine is the only one which has met with wide acceptance, we direct our objections 
mainly to this. 

F. W. Robertson, Sermons, 1 : 1(0-178, holds that Christ*s sulTerings were the neces- 
sary result of the position in which he had placed himself of conflict or collision with 
the evil that is in the world. He came in contact with the whirling wheel, and was 
crushed by it ; he planted his heel upon the cockatrice's den, and was pierced by its 
fang. Maurice, on Sacrifice, 209, and Thcol. Ba«i>-8, 141, SS8, regards Christ's sufTerings 
as an illustration, given by the ideal man, of the self-sacrifice due to God from the 
humanity of which he is the root and head, all men being redeemed in him, irrespective 
of their faith, and needing only to have brought to them the news of this redemption. 
Toung, Life and Light of Men, holds a view essentially the same with Robertson's. 
Christ's death is the necessary result of his collision with evil, and his sufferings extir- 
pate sin, simply by manifesting God's self-sacrificing love. 

Campbell, Atonement, 129-191, quotes from Edwards, to show that infinite Justice 
might be satisfied in either one of two ways : ( 1 ) by an inflmte punishment ; ( 2 ) by an 
adequate repentance. This last, which Edwards passed by as impracticable, Campbell 
declares to have been the real atonement offered by Christ, who stands as the groat 
Penitent, confessing the sin of the world. Mason, Faith of the Gospel, 160-Slti, takes 
substantially the view of Campbell, denjring substitution, and emphasizing Christ's 
oneness with the race and his confession of human sin. He grants indeed that our Lord 
bore penalty, but only in the sense that he realized how groat was the oondemnation 
and penalty of the race. 

Schleiermacher denies any satisfaction to God by substitution. He puts in its place 
an influence of Christ's personality on men, so that they feel themselves reconciled 
and redeemed. The atonement is piu«ly subjective. Yet it is the work of Christ, in 
that only Chrigt*8 oneness with God has taught men that they can be one with God. 
Christ's consciousness of his being in God and knowing God, and his power to impart 
this consciousness to others, make him a Minllator and Savior. The idea of reparation, 
comp«;nsation, sutisfaetion, substitution, is wholly Jewish. He regarded it as possible 
only to a narrow-minded people. He tells us that he hates in religion that kind of 
hlBtorio relation. He had no such sense of the holiness of God, or of the guilt of man, 
as would make necessary any suffering of punishment or offering to God for human 
sin. He desires to replace external and historical Christianity by a Christianity that is 
internal and subjective. See Schleiermacher, Der Christliche Glaube, 2 : 91-161. 

Ritschl however is the most recent and influential representative of the Moral Influ- 
ence theory in Germany. His view is to be found in his Rechtfertigung und VersUhn* 
ung,orin English translation, Justiflcation and Reconciliation. Ritschl is anti-Hegelian 
and libertarian, but like Schleiermacher he does not treat sin with seriousness ; ho 
regards the sense of guilt as an illusion which it is the part of Christ to dispel ; there is 
an inadequate conception of Christ's person, a practical denial of his pre-existenoe and 
work of objective atonement; indeed, the work of Christ is hardly put into any precise 
relation to sin at all ; see Dcnney. Studies in Theology, 136-151. E. H. Johnson : ** Many 
Rltschlians deny both the miraculous conception and the bodily resurrection of Jesus. 
Sin docs not particularly concern God ; Christ is Savior only as Buddha was, achieving 
lordship over the world by indifference to it ; he is the Word of God, only as he reveals 
this divine indifference to things. AU this does not agree with the N. T. teaching that 
Christ is the only begotten Son of God, that he was with the Father before the world 
was, that he made expiation of sins to God, and that sin is that abominable thing that 
God hates." For a general survey of the Ritschlian theology, see Orr, Ritschlian The* 




THE BUSHNELLIAN THEORY OF THE ATONEMBIH'. 735 

olo^y, 231-ini ; Presb. and Ref. Rcv^ July, 1891 : 443-458 (art. by Zahn), and Jan. 1898: 
1-21 ( art by C. M. Mead ) ; Andover Review, July, 1893 : 440-461 ; Am. Jour. Theoloflry. 
Jan. 1899 : tS-44 ( art. by H. R. Mackintosh ) ; Lidffett, Spin Prin. of Atonement, 190-007 ; 
Foster, Christ. Life and Theolo^ ; and the work of Oarvie on Ritsohl. For statement 
and criticism of other forms of the Moral Influence theory, see Crawford, Atonement, 
297-866 ; Watte, New Apologetic, 210-247. 

To this theory we object as follows : 

(a) While it embraces a valuable element of tmth, xxamelj, the moral 
influence upon men of the sufferings of the God-man, it is false by defect, 
in that it substitutes a subordinate effect of the atonement for its chief aim, 
and yet unfairly appropriates the name ' vicarious,' which belongs only to 
the latter. Suffering with the sinner is by no means suffering in his ateacL 

Dale, Atonement, 137, illustrates Bushnell*s view by the loyal wife, who suffers exile 
or imprisonment with her husband ; by the philanthropist, who suffers the privations 
and hardships of a savage people, whom he can civilize only by enduring the miserieB 
from which he would rescue them ; by the Moravian missionary, who enters for life 
the lepers* enclosure, that he may convert its inmates. So Potwin says that suffering 
and death arc the a)8t of the atonement, not the atonement itself. 

But we reply that such sufferings as these do not make Christ's sacrifice vicarious. 
The word ^icarious* ( from vicia) implies substitution, which this theory denies. The 
vicar of a parish is not necessarily one who performs service with, and in sympathy 
with, the rector, —ho is rather one who stands in the rector's place. A vice-president 
is one who acts in place of the president ; * A. B., appointed consul, vice C. D., resigned,' 
implies that A. B. is now to serve in the stead of C. D. If Christ is a * vicarious sacri- 
fice,* then he makes atonement to God in the place and stead of sinners. Christ's suffer- 
ing in and with sinners, though it is a most important and affecting fact, is not the 
suffering in their stead in which the atonement consists. Though suffering in and with 
sinners may be in part the medium through which Christ was enabled to endure Gk>d's 
wrath against sin, it is not to be confounded with the reason why Qod lays this suffeiv 
ing upon him ; nor should it blind us to the fact that this reason is his standing in the 
sinner's place to answer for sin to the retributive holiness of Ood. 

(&) It rests upon false philosophical principles^ — as, that righteonsness 
is identical with benevolence, instead of conditioning it ; that God is sub- 
ject to an eternal law of love, instead of being himself the source of all law; 
that the aim of penalty is the reformation of the offender. 

Hovey, Ood with lis, 181-271, has given one of the best replies to BushnelL He shows 
that if God is subject to an eternal law of love, then God is necessarily a Savior ; that 
he must have created man as soon as he could ; that he makes men holy as fast as pos- 
sible ; that ho does all the good ho can ; that he is no better than he should be. But 
this is to deny the transcendence of God, and reduce omnipotence to a mere nature- 
power. The conception of God as subject to law imperils God*s self-suflSciency and 
f n>ed()m. For Bushnell's statements with regard to the Identity of righteousness end 
love, and for criticisms upon them, see our treatment of the attribute of HoUness, voL 
I, pages 208-275. 

Wutts, New Apologetic, 277-280, points out that, upon Bushnell's principles, there 
must be an atonement for fallen angels. God was bound to assume the angelic nature 
and to do for angels all that he has done for us. There is also no reason for restricting 
either the atonement or the offer of salvation to the present life. B. B. Warfleld, in 
Princeton Review, 1903:81-92, shows well that all the forms of the Moral Influence 
theory rest upon the assumption that God is only love, and that all that is required as 
ground of the sinner's forgiveness is penitence, either Christ's, or his own, or both 
together. 

Ignoring the divine holiness and minimising the guUlt of sin, many modem writers 
make atonement to be a mere incident of Christ's incarnation. Phillips Brooks, life, 
2:;j50, 851 — ** Atonement by suffering is the result of the Incarnation; atonement 
being the necessary, and suffering the incidental element of that result. But sacrifice 
is an essential element, for sacrifice truly signifies here the consecration of human 
nature to its highest use and utterance, and does not neoessarlly involve the thought of 



•736 CHRISTOLOOY, OR THE DOCTRINE OP REDEMPTION. 

pain. It is not the destruction but tho fulfilment of human life. Inasmuch as the 
human life thus consecrated and fulfilled is the same in us as in Jesus, and inasmuch 
as his consecration and fulfilment mokes morally possible for us the same consecration 
and fulfilment of it which he achieved, therefore his atonement and his sacrifice, and 
incidentally his sufferingr, become vicarious. It is not that they make unnecessary, 
but that they make possible and successful in us, the same processes which were per- 
fect in him." 

( c ) The theory furnishes no proper reason for Ohrist's suffering. While 
it shows that the Savior necessarily suffers from his contact with human 
sin and sorrow, it gives no explanation of that constitution of the universe 
which makes suffering the consequence of sin, not only to the sinner, but 
also to the innocent being who comes into connection with sin. The holi- 
ness of God, which is manifested in this constitution of things and which 
requires this atonement, is entirely ignored. 

B. W. Lockhart, in a recent statement of the doctrine of the atonement, shows this 
defect of apprehension : "' God in Christ reconciled the world to himself ; Christ did 
not reconcile God to man, but man to God. Christ did not enable God to save men ; 
God enabled Christ to save men. The sufferinfirs of Christ were vicarious as the higrhest 
illustration of that spiritual law by which the good soul is impelled to suffer that 
others may not suffer, to die that others may not die. The vicarious sufferings of 
Jesus were also the great revelation to man of the vicarious nature of God ; a revela- 
tion of the cross as eternal in his nature ; that it is in the heart of God to bear the sin 
and sorrow of his creatures in his eternal love and pity ; a revelation moreover that 
the law which saves the lost through the vicarious labors of godlike souls prevails 
wherever the godlike and the lost soul can influence each other." 

While there is much in the above statement with which we agree, we charge it with 
misapprehending the reason for Christ's suffering. That reason is to be found only in 
that holiness of God which expresses itself in the very constitution of the universe. 
Not love but holiness has made suffering invariably to follow sin, so that penalty falls 
not only upon the transgressor but upon him who is the life and sponsor of the trans- 
gressor. God's holiness brings suffering to Go<i, and to Christ who manifests God. 
Love bears the suffering, but it is holiness that necessitates it. The statement of 
Lockhart above gives account of the effect— reconciliation; but it fails to recognize 
the cause— propitiation. The words of E. G. Robinson furnish the needed comple- 
ment : ** The work of Christ has two sides, propitiatory and reconciling. Christ felt 
the pang of a8so(;iation with a guilty race. The divine displeasure rested on him as 
possessing the guilty nature. In his own person he redeems this nature by bearing 
its penalty. Propitiation must precede reconciliation. The Moral Influence theory 
recognizes the necessity of a subjective change in man, but makes no provision of an 
objective agency to secure it." 

{d) It contradicts the plain teachings of Scripture, that the atonement 
is necessary, not simply to reveal Gk>d'8 love, but to satisfy his justice ; 
that Christ's sufferings are propitiatory and penal ; and that the human 
conscience needs to be propitiated by Christ's sacrifice, before it can feel 
the moral influence of his sufferings. 

That the atonement is primarily an offering to God, and not to the sinner, appears 
from Eph. 5 : 2— "gare kimself up for ni, «n offaring and a nailioe to God "; Hob. 9 : 14 — "offored hJmMlf without 
Uonish unto Ood." Conscience, the reflection of God's holiness, can be propitiated only by 
propitiating holiness itself. Mere love and sympathy are maudlin, and powerless to 
move, unless there is a background of righteousness. Spear : ^ An appeal to man, 
without anything back of it to emphasize and enforce the appeal, wiU never touch the 
heart. The mere appearance of an atonement has no moral influence.*' Crawford, 
Atonement, 35&-a67— ** Instead of delivering us from penalty, in order to deliver us from 
8in, this theory mades Christ to deliver us from sin, in order that he may deliver us 
from penalty. But this reverses the order of Scripture. And Dr. Bushnell concedes, in 
the end, that the moral view of the atonement is morally powerless ; and that the 
objective view he condemns is, after all. indispensable to the salvation of sinners." 




BUSHNELLIAN" THEORY OF THE ATONBMEIH'. 737 

Some raon are qiiiio rwicly tr) forgrivo those whom they have offended. The Ritschlllui 
sch(M)i s(rcs no jfuilt to Ik; atoned for, and no propitiation to be necessary. Oniy man 
needs to be reoonciie<i. Hitschlians are quite ready to forjflve (Jod. The only atone- 
ment is an atonement, made by n^pentuuce, to the human conscieneo. Shedd says 
well : "All that is requisite in order to satisfaction and peace of conscience in the sinful 
soul is also requisite in ord€>r to tlie satisfaction of God himself." Walter Besant : *' It 
is not enough to be forjpiven,— one has also to forgrive one's self." The converse prop- 
osition is yet more true : It is not enoug^h to forgrivo one's self,— one has also to be for- 
griven ; indeed, one cannot rigrhtly forgrive one's self, unless one has been first forgiven; 
1 John 3 : 20 — "if oar heart condemn as, God is greater than oar heart, and knoveth all things.'* A. J. Gordon, 
Ministry of the Spirit, 201— "As the high priest carried the blood into the Holy of Holies 
under tlie old dispensation, so does the Spirit take the blood of Christ into the inner 
sanctuar3'' of our spirit in the new dispensation, in order that he may 'eleasse joor eonaeleiioi 
from dead vorks to senre the liring God ' ( Heb. 9 : 14 )." 

( e ) It can be maintained, only by wresting from their obvious meaning 
those passages of Scripture which speak of Christ as suffering for our sins ; 
which represent his blood as accomplishing something for us in heaven, 
when presented there by our intercessor ; which declare forgiveness to be a 
remitting of past offences upon the ground of Christ's death ; and which 
describe justification as a pronouncing, not a making, just. 

We have seen that the forms in which the Scriptures describe Christ's death are 
mainly drawn from sacrifice. Notice Bushnell's acknowledgment that these "altar- 
forms " are the most vivid and effective methods of presentingr Christ's work, and that 
the preacher cannot dispense with them. Why he should not dispense with them, if 
the mcaninf? has firone out of them, is not so clear. 

In his latcT work, entitled Forgiveness and Law, Bushnell appears to recognize this 
inconsistency, and represents God as affected by the atonement, after all; in other 
words, the atonement has an objective as well as a subjective infiuence. God can 
forgive, only by "making cost to himself." He "works down his resentment, by 
8uff(*ring for us." This verges toward the true view, but it does not recognisse the 
demand of divine holiness for satisfaction ; and it attributes passion, weakness, and 
imperfection to (t od. Domer, Glaubenslehre, 2 : 591 ( Syst. Doct., 4 : 59, 09 ), objects to 
this modified Moral Influence theory, that the love that can do good to an enemy is 
cUre/uly firruiving love; so tliatthe benefit to the enemy cannot be, as Bushnell sup- 
poses, a conditUm of the forgiveness. 

To CampbelPs view, that Christ is the great Penitent, and that his atonement consists 
essentially in his confessing the sins of the world, we reply, that no confession or peni- 
tence is possible without responsibility. If Christ had no substitutionary office, the 
ordering of his sufferings on tiie part of God was manifest injustice. Such sufferings, 
moreover, are impossible upon grounds of mere sympathy. The Scripture explains 
them by declaring that he bore <.ur curse, and became a ransom in our place. There 
was more therefore in the sufferings of Christ than " a perfect Amen in humanity to 
the Judgment of God on the sin of man." Not Phinehas's zeal for God, but his execu- 
tion of Judijrment, made an atonement (Pi. 106:30— "exe6atadjiidgmait"—Lxx.: i^tXiaaro, 
"made propiti&ticn " ) and turned away the wrath of God. Observe hero the contrast 
between the priestly atonement of Aaron, who stood between the living and the dead, 
and the j}ulivi<il atonement of Phinehas, who executed righteous Judgment, and so 
turned away wrath. In neither case did mere confession suffice to take away sin. On 
Campbeirs view see further, on page 700. 

Moberly, Atonement and Personality, 98, has the great merit of pointing out that 
Christ shares our sufferings in virtue of the fact that our personality has its ground in 
him ; but that this sharing of our penalty was necessitated by God's righteousness he 
has failed to indicate. He tells us that " Christ sanctified the present and cancels the 
past. He offers to God a living holiness in human conditions and character; he makes 
the awful sacrifice in humanity of a perfect contrition. The one is the offering of 
obedience, the other the offering of atonement ; the one the offering of the life, the 
other the offering of the death." This modification of Gampbell*s view can be rationally 
maintained only by connecting with it a prior declaration that the fundamental attri- 
bute of God is holiness; that holiness is self -affirming righteousness; that this right- 
eousness necessarily expresses itself in the punishment of sin : that Christ's relation to 

47 



738 OHRISTOLOQY, OR THE DOCTRINE OF BEOEMFTIOK. 

the raor as Its upholder and life made him the bearer of Its mint and Justly responsIUe 
for Its sin. Scripture declares the ultimate aim of the atonement to be that God "migh^ 
Uanalf be Jut" ( Rom. 3 : 28), and no theory of the atonement will meet the demands of 
either reason or conscicnoc that does not ({round its necessity in God's righteousness, 
rather than in his love. 

E. Y. Mullins : *' If Christ's union with humanity made it posrible for him to be *' the 
representative Penitent,' and to be the Amen of humanity to God's Just condemnatloa 
of sin, his union with God made it also possible for him to be the representative of the 
Judge, and to be the Amen of the divine nature to suffering, as the expression of ood- 
demnation.'* Denney, Studies in Theolog>', 103, 103 — '' The serious element in sin Is not 
man's dislike, suspicion, alienation from GKxl, nor the debilitating, corrupting efltets 
of vice in human nature, but rather God's condenmation of man. This Christ endured, 
and died that the condemnation might be removed. * Doariug shame and scoflBng rude. 
In my place condemned he stood ; Scaled my pardon with his blood ; Hallelujah I ' " 

Hushnell regards Mat 8 : 17— " liBMlf took oar inflrmitia, and ban oar diMaMB "— as indicating the 
nature of Christ's atoning work. The meaning then would be, that he sympathized so 
fully with all human ills that he made them his own. Hovoy, however, has given a 
more complete and correct explanation. The words mean rather : " His deep sympathy 
with these effects of sin so moved him, that it typifliHl his final bearing of the sins them- 
selves, or constituted a preliminary and partial endurance of the suffering which was 
to expiate the sins of men." His sighing when he cured the deaf man ( Hark 7 : M ) and 
his weeping at the grave of Lazarus ( John 11 : 35 ) were caused by the anticipatory reali- 
sation that he was one with the humanity which was under the curse, and that he too 
had " baeoma a oarM for ni " ( QaL 3 : 13 ). The great error of BushneU is his denial of the 
objective necessity and effect of Jesus* death, and all Scripture which points to an 
influence of the atonement outside of us is a refutation of his theory. 

(/) This theory oonfonnds Gk)d's method of saving men with men's 
ezi)erience of being saved. It mokes the atonement itself consist of its 
effects in the believer's union with Christ and the purifying influence of 
that union upon the character and life. 

Stevens, in his Doctrine of Salvation, makes this mistake. He says : ** The old forms 
of the doctrine of the atonement — that the suffering of Christ was nect^ssary to appease 
the wrath of God and induce him to forgive ; or to satisfy the law of God and enable 
him to forgive ; or to move ui>on man's heart to induce him to acc^upt forgiveness ; 
have all proved inadequate. Yet to reject the passion of Christ is to reject the chief 
element of power in Cluistianity. . . . To me the words* eternal atonement 'denote the 
dateless passion of God on account of sin ; they mean that God is, by his very nature, 
a sin-bearer — that sin grieves and wounds his heart, and that he sorrows and suffers in 
oonsequenoe of it. It results f n>m the divine love — alike from its holiness and from 
its sympathy — tliat * in our afliiction he is afflicted.* Atonement on its * (jodward side ' 
is a name for the grief and pain intlicted by sin upon the paternal heart of God. Of 
this divine sorrow for sin, the afflictions of Christ are a revelation. In the bittcT grief 
and anguish which ho experienee<l on account of sin we see reflected the pain and 
sorrow which sin brings to the divine love." 

All this is well said, with the exception that holiness is regarded as a form of love, 
and the primary offence of sin is regarded as the grieving of the Father's hc*art. Dr. 
Stevens fails to consider that if love were supreme there would be nothing to prevent 
unholy tolerance of sin. Because holiness is supreme, lo\*e is conditioned thert>l)y. It 
Is holiness and not love that connc>cts Buffering with sin, and requires that the Kedeemer 
should suffer. Dr. Stevens asst^rts that the theories hith(>rto current in Protostunt 
churches and the theory for which he pleads are ** forever irrecoiu^ilable "; they are 
" based on radically different conet»ptions of God." The British Weekly. Xov. 10, 1U06— 
** The doctrine of the atonement is not the doctrine that salvation is deliverance from 
sin, and that this deliverance is the work of Go<l, a work the moti\'e of which is Ctxl's 
love for men ; those are truths whi<:h every one who writes on the Atonement assumes. 

The doctrine of the Atonement has for its task to explain how this work is done 

Dr. Stevens makes no contribution whatever to its fulfilment. He grants that we have 
in Paul 'the theory of a sulkstitutionary expiation.' But he finds something else in Paul 
which he thinks a more a(l(^<iuate rendering of the apostle's Christian ex|)erience— the 
idea, namely, of dying with Christ and rising with him ; and on the strength of accept' 
ing this hist lu) feels at liberty to drop the substitutionary expiation overboard as 



BirSHNELLlAN THEORY OF THB ATOKElCEITr. 739 

somethingr to bo explained from Paul's controycrsial poeition, or from his Pharisaic 
Inheritance, something at all events which has no permanent value for the Christian 
mind. . . . The experience is dependent on the method. Paul did not die with Christ 
as an alternative to havingr Christ die with him ; he died with Christ wholly and solely 
because Christ died for him. It was the meanin^r carried by the last two words— the 
meaningr unfolded in the theory of substitutionary expiation — which had the moral 
motive in it to draw Paul into union with his Lord in life and death. ... On Dr. 
Stevens* own showingr, Paul held the two ideas side by side ; for him the mystical union 
with Christ was only possible through the acoeptanoe of truths with which Dr. Stevens 
does not know what to do.'* 

(g) This theory wonld confine the influence of the atonement to those 
who have heard of it, — thus excluding patriarchs and heathen. But the 
Scriptures represent Christ as being the Savior of all men, in the sense of 
securing them grace, which, but for his atoning work, could never havd 
been bestowed consistently with the divine holiness. 

Hovey : ** The manward influence of the atonement is far more extensive than the 
moral influence of it." Christ is Advocate, not with the sinner, but with the Father. 
While the Spirit's work has moral influence over the hearts of men, the Son secures, 
throuerh the presentation of his blood, in heaven, the pardon which can come only from 
God ( 1 John 2 : 1 — " v« hare ui adTooate with the firth«r, J«nu Ghriit the ri^teoos: ud he is the pnpidAtion for 
oar das"). Hence 1:9— "Ifve oonftes our lin^ he [Ood] it Ikithftil and righteou [faithful to his 
promise and righteous to Christ ] to fiirg;iTe u our liiii." Hence the pubUoan does not first 
pray for change of heart, but for mercy upon the grround of sacrifice ( Lake 18 : 13, — "Ged, 
be thoa merdfol to me a sinner," but literally : " God be propitiated tovarl sm the tinner "). See Balfour, 
in Brit, and For. Ev. Bev., Apr. 1884:230-264; Martin, Atonement, 216-287; Theol. 
Eclectic, 4 : 364-409. 

Gravitation kept the universe stable, long^ before it was discovered by man. So the 
atonement of Christ was inuringr to the salvation of men, long before they suspected 
its existence. The "Light of the world " ( John 8 : 12 ) has many *' X rays," beyond the visible 
spectrum, but able to impress the image of Christ upon patriarchs or heathen. This 
light has been shining through all the ages, but "the darkness apprehended it not" (Johai : 5). 
Its rays register themselves only where there is a sensitive heart to receive them. Let 
them shine through a man, and how much unknown sin, and unknown possibilities of 
good, they reveal I The Moral Influence theory does not take account of the pre- 
§zistent Christ and of his atoning work before his manifestation in the flesh. It there- 
fore leads logically to beUef in a second probation for the many imbeciles, outcasts, and 
heathen who in this world do not hear of Christ's atonement. The doctrine of Bushnell 
in this way undermines the doctrine of future retribution. 

To Lsrman Abbott, the atonement is the self-propitiation of God's love, and its influ-* 
enoe is exerted through education. In his Theology of an Evolutionist, 118, 190, he 
muintains that the atonement is *'a true reconciliation between God and man, making 
them at one through the incarnation and passion of Jesus Christ, who lived and suf- 
fered, not to redeem men from future torment, but to purify and perfect them in 
God's likeness by uniting them to God. . . . Sacrifice is not a penalty borne by an Inno- 
cent sufferer for guilty men, — a doctrine for which there is no authority either in 
Scripture or in life ( 1 Peter 8 : 18?) —but a lajring down of one's life in love, that anothei 
may receive life. . . . Bedemption is notrestoration to alost state of innocence, impos^ 
sible to be restored, but a culmination of the long process when man shall be presented 
before his Father 'not baring spot or wrinkle or anj sash thing' (Ipb.5:27). . . . We believe not in 
the propitiation of an angry God by another suffering to appease the Father's wrath, 
but in the perpetual self-propitiation of the Father, whose mercy, going forth to 
redeem from sin, satisfies as nothing else could the divine Indignation against sin, by 
abolishing it. . . . Mercy is hate pitying ; it is the pity of wrath. The pity conquers 
the hate only by lifting the sinner up from his degradation and restoring him to purity." 
And yet in all this there is no mention of the divine righteousness as the source of the 
indignation and the object of the propitiation I 

It is interesting to note that some of the greatest advocates of the Moral Influence 
^.hcory have reverted to the older faith when they came to die. In his dying moments, 
as L. W. Munhall tells us, Horace Bushnell said : ** I fear what I have written and said 
ui>on the moral idea of the atonement is micleading and will do great harm ;" and, as 
he thought of it further, he cried : ** Oh Lord Jesus, I trust for mercy only in the shed 



740 CHRISTOLOGY, OE THE DOCTBINB OF REDEMPTTOK. 

blood that thou didst offer on Calvary ! '* Schleicnniichcr, on bis doathl)od, aasembled 
his family and a lew friends, and hinuielf ailministerod the Ijortl's Supper. After 
pra3'in9 and blesHiuK the bread, and after pronouncing; thcwoixls: "Thisismjbo^, brokaB 
for joa," ho added : *' Tliis is our foun<lation ! " As ho started to bl(!88 the cup, ho 
cried : *^ Quick, quiclc, brinur the cup I I am so happy ! " Then ho sank quietly back^ and 
was no more ; see life* of Uothe, by Nippold, 2 : 53, 54. Uitschl, in his History of Piet- 
ism, 2 : 66, had severely criticized Paul Gerhardt's hymn : ** O Haupt toU Blut und 
Wunden," as describing- physical suffering ; but he begfpod his son to repeat the two 
last verses of that hymn : ** O sacrod head now wounded ! " when he came to die. And 
in gpeneral, the convicted sinner flnds peace most quickly and surely when he is pointed 
to the Redeemer who died on the Cross and endured the penalty of sin in his stead. 

8d. The Grotiaii, or Goyenmieiital Theory of the Atonement. 

This theory holds that the atonement is a satisfaction, not to any inter* 
nal principle of the divine nature, but to the necessities of government. 
God*s government of the universe canuot be maintained, nor can the 
divine law preserve its authority over its subjects, unless the jmrdon of 
offenders is accompanied by some exhibition of the high estimate which 
God sets ui)on his law, and the heinous guilt of violating it. Such an 
exhibition of divine regard for the law is furnished in the sufferings and 
death of Christ. Christ does not suffer the precise penalty of the law, but 
€k>d graciously accepts his suffering as a substitute for the penalty. Tliis 
bearing of substituted suffering on the part of Christ gives the divine law 
such hold upon the consciences and hearts of men, that God can pardon 
tlie giiilty upon their reijentonce, without detriment to the interests of his 
government. The author of tliis theory was Hugo Grotius, the Dutch jur- 
ist and theologian ( 1583-1645 ). Tlie theory is characteristic of the New 
England tlicology, and is generally held by those who accept the New 
School view of sin. 

Grotius was a precocious genius. He wrote good Latin verses at nine years of age ; 
was ripe for the University at twelve; edited tho encyclopecdic work of Marcianus 
Capella at fifteen. Even thus early he went with an embassy to the court of Franco, 
where he spent a year. Returning home, he took the degree of doctor of laws. In lit- 
erature he edited the remains of Anitus, and wrote throe dramas in Latin. At twenty 
he was appointed historiographer of the United Provinces ; then advocate-general of 
the flsc for Holland and Zeakind. He wrote on intc^mational law ; was appointed 
deputy toEngiand; was imprisoned for his theological opinions; escaped to Paris; 
became ambassador of Sweden to Fnuice. He wrote commentaries on Scripture, also 
history, theology, and poetry. He was indiflTerent to dogma, a lover of peace, a compro- 
miser, an unpartisan believer, dealing with doctrine more as a stat<«man than as a 
theologian. Of Grotius, Dr. E. G. Uoblnsim used to say : *' It is ordained of almighty 
God that the man who dips into everything never gets to the bottom of unytliing.** 

Grotius, tho jurist, conceived of law as a mere matter of political ez[)edicncy— a 
device to procure practical governmental result**. Tlio text most frequently quoted in 
support of his theory, is Ii. 42 : 21 — " It pleased JehoTah, for Ids righteooaness' sake, to magniff the law, and 
Bake it honorable." Strangely enough, the explanation is added : ** even when its demands 
are imfulflllod.** Park: ** Christ satisfied the law, by making it desirable and consist- 
ent for God not to come up to tho demands of the law. Christ suffers a divine chastise- 
ment in consequence of our sins. Christ was cursed for A<1am*s sin, Just as the heav^ens 
and tho earth were cursed for Adam'ssin, — thatis, he bore pains and sufferin^rson 
account of it." 

Grotius used the word tuxeptUatlo^ by which he meant God's sovereign provision of a 
BufToring which was not itself penalty, but which he had determined to accept as a 
substitute for penalty. Here we have a virtual denial that there is anytliing in God's 
nature that requires Christ to sufTer ; for if penalty may be remitted in part, it may be 
remitted in whole, and the reason why Christ suffers at all is to be found, not in any 
demand of God^s holiness, but solely in the beneficial influenoc of those sufferings upon 



GBOTIAN THEORY OP THE ATONEMENT. 741 

man; so that in principle this theory is allied to the Example theory and the Moral 
Influence theory, already mentioned. 

Notice the difference between holding; to a 8ul)8tUute for penalty^ as Orotius did, and 
holding to an equivalent substitvled penalty^ as the Scriptures do. Orotius^s own state- 
ment of his view may be found in his Dcfensio Fidel Catholicee do Satisfactiono (Works, 
4 : 297-338 ). More modem statements of it are those of Wardlaw, in his Systematic 
Theology, 2 : 838-395, and of All)ert Barnes, on the Atonement. The history of New 
England thought upon the subject is given In Discourses and Treatises on the Atone- 
ment, edited by Prof. Park, of Andover. President Woolsey : " Christ's suffering was 
duo to a deep and awful sense of responsibility, a conception of the supreme importance 
to man of his standing firm at this crisis. He bore, not the wrath of Ood, but suffering, 
as the only way of redemption so far as men's own feeling of sin was concerned, and so 
far as the government of God was concerned." This unites the Governmental and the 
Moral Influence theories. 

Foster, Christian Life and Theology, 238, 227 — *' Grotius emphasized the idea of law 
rather than that of justice, and made the sufferings of Christ a legal example and the 
occasion of the relaxation of the law, and not the strict penalty demanded by Justice. 
But this view, however it may have been considered and have served In the clarifica- 
tion of the thinking of the times, met with no general reception, and left little trace of 
itself among those theologians who maintained the line of evangelical theological 
descent.** 

To this theory we urge the following objections : 

( a ) While it contains a valuable element of truth, namely, that the suf- 
ferings and death of Christ secure the interests of God's government, it is 
false by defect, in substituting for the chief aim of the atonement one 
which is only subordinate and incidentaL 

In our discussion of Penalty ( pages 655, 656 ), we have seen that the object of punish- 
ment is not primarily the security of government. It is not right to punish a man for 
the beneficial effect on society. Ill-desert must go before punishment, or the punish- 
ment can have no beneficial effect on society. No punishment can work good to society, 
that is not Just and right in itself. 

( & ) It rests upoji false philosophical principles, — as, that utility is the 
ground of moral obligation ; that law is an expression of the will, rather 
than of the nature, of God ; that the aim of penalty is to deter from the com- 
mission of offences ; and that righteousness is resolvable into benevolence. 

Hodge, Syst. TheoL, 2 : 573-581 ; 3 : 188, 189 — *' For God to take that as satisfaction 
which is not really such, is to say that there is no truth in anything. God may take a 
part for the whole, error for truth, wrong for right. The theory really denies the 
necessity for the work of Christ. If every created thing offered to God is worth Just 
so much as God accepts it for, then the blood of bulls and goats might take away sins, 
and Christ isdead in vain.** Domer, Glaubenslchre, 2 : 570, 571 ( Syst. Doot., i : 38-40 )— 
**AcceptU(Uio implies that nothing is good and right in itself. Qod is indifferent to good 
or evlL Man is bound by authority and force alone. There is no neocsslty of punish- 
ment or atonement. The doctrine of indulgences and of sapererogation logically 
follows.*' 

( c ) It ignores and virtually denies that immanent holiness of God of 
which the law with its threatened penalties, and the human conscience 
with its demand for punishment, are only finite reflections. There is some- 
thing back of government ; if the atonement satisfies government, it must 
be by satisfying that justice of God of which government is an expression. 

No deeply convicted sinner feels that his controversy is with government. Undone 
and polluted, he feels himself in antagonism to the purity of a personal God. Govern- 
ment is not greater than God, but leas. What satisfies God must satisfy government. 
Hence the sinner prays : " igainst thee, thee onlj, hare I sinned " ( Pb. 51 : 4 ) ; "God be propitiated towwd 
me the sinner" ( literal translation of Lnke 18 : 13 ),— propitiated through God's own appointed 
sacrifloe whose smoke is ascending in his behsUf even while he prays. 



742 CHKISTOLOGY^ OB THB DOCTRINE OF R£DEMFTI02r. 

In the divine govemmciit thi» tbeory recogniaes no constitution, but onJj IcfflBlstiTe 
enactment ; eren this leipislat ive enactment is grounded in no neeemity of Godls nature, 
but onJ J in expediency or in God's arbitnuy wiil ; law may be abrogated for merely 
economic reaK^ns, if any incidental ^ood may be gained thereby. J. M. Oampbell, 
Atonement, 81. lU— '* No awakened sinner, into whose spirit the terrors of the tew 
have entered, ever thinJu of rectoral Justice, but of absolute Justice, and of absolute 
Justice only. . • . Bectoral Justice so presupposes absolute Justice, and so throws the 
mind back on that absolute Justice, that the idea of an atonement that wiil satisfy the 
one, though it might not the other, is a delusion." 

N. W. Taylor's Theology was entitled : ** Moral Government,** and C. G. Finney's Sy^ 
tematic Theology was a treatise on Moral Government, although it called itself by 
another name. But because New England Meas of government were not sulllciently 
grounded in God's bollneas, but were rather based upon utility, expediency, or happi- 
ness, the very Idea of government has dropped out of the New School theology, and its 
advocates with well-nigh one accord have gone o%*fr to the Moral Influence theory of 
the atonement, which is only a modified Sodnianinn. Both the Andover atonement 
and that of Oberlin have become purc*Iy subjective. For this reason the Grotian or 
Governmental theory has lost Its hold upon the theological world and needs to have no 
large amount of space devoted to it. 

( (2 ) It makes that to be an exhibition of justice which is not an exercifie 
of jnstioe ; the atonement being, aooording to this theory, not an execution 
of law, but an exhibition of regard for law, which will make it safe to par- 
don the violators of law. Such a merely scenic representation can insi>ire 
respect for law, only so long as the essential unreality of it is unsuspected. 

To teach that sin will be punished, there must be punishment. Potwin : ** How the 
exhibition of what sin dc8er\'eB, but does not get, can satisfy Justice, is hard to see." 
The Soclnian view of Christ as an example of virtue Is more Intelligible than the 
Grotian view of Christ as an example of chastisement. Lymao Abbott : ** If I thought 
that Jesus suffered and died to produce* a moral impression on me, it would not pro* 
duce a moral impression on me." William Ashmore : ** A stage tragedian commits a 
mr)ck murder in order to move people to tears. If Christ was in no sense a substitute, 
or If he was not co-responsible with the sinner he represents, then God and Christ are 
participants in a /cal tragedy the most awful that ever darkened human history, sim- 
ply for the sake of its effect on men to move their callous sensibilities— a stage-trick 
for the same effect." 

The mother pretends to cry In order to induce her child to obey. But the child will 
obey only while It thinks the mother's grief a reality, and the last state of that child is 
wone than the first. Christ's atonement is no passion-play. Hell cannot be cured by 
homu.Hjpathy. The sacrifice of Calvary is no dramatic exhibition of suffering for the 
puri>oeo of pnxlucing a moral impression on awe-stricken si>eetators. It is an object- 
lemon, only Ixrcause It is a reality. All God's Justice and all Gh>d*s love are focused in 
the Crrjfls, so that it teaches more of God and his truth than all space and time beside. 

John Milton, Paradise Lost, book 5, speaks of " mist, the common gloss of theolo- 
gians." Such mist Is the leiral fiction by which Clirist's suffering is taken in place of 
legal penalty, while yet It is not the legal penalty itself. K G. Itobinson : " Atonement 
Is not an arbitrary contrivance, so that if one person will endure a certain amount of 
suff(.*ring, a certain numlx*r of others may go scot-free." Mercy never cheats Justice. 
Yet the New School thefjry of atonement admits that Christ cheated Justice by a trick. 
It Hulistitutcfl the iienalty of Christ for the penalty of the redeemed, and then substi- 
tuted something else for the penalty of Christ. 

(e) The intensity of Christ's sufferings in the garden and on the cross 
is inexplicable upon the theory that the atonement was a histrionic exhibi- 
tion of God*s regard for his government, and can be explained only upon 
the view that Christ actually endured the wrath of God against human sin. 

Christ refused the " wins minglMl vith mjrrh " (Mark 15 : 23 ), that he might to the last have 
full possession of his powers and si>eak no words but words of truth and soberness. 
H is cry of agony : " M j God, mj God, vhj hut Uum fbn&ken me ? " ( Mat 27 : 46 ), was not an ejacula- 
tion of thoughtless or delirious suffering. It expressed the deoi>o8t mooning of the 
crucifixion. The darkening of the heavens was only the outward s>inbol of the hiding 



QROTIAN THEOBY OF THE ATONEMENT. 743 

of t ho countenance of Qod from him who was "nude to be ifai on ov bebalf *' ( 2 Cor. 5 : 21 ). In 
the case of Christ, above that of all others, finis coronot, and dyin^r words are undyloir 
words. ** The tongues of dying men Enforce attention like deep harmony ; When 
words are scarce they 're seldom spent in vain. For they breathe truth that breathe 
their words in pain.^* Versus Park, Discourses, 828-366. 

A pure woman needs to meet an infamous proposition with something more than a 
mild refusal. She must flame up and be angry. Pi.97:10— "Ojothat lore Jehorah, lute eril " ; 
Bph. 4 : 26 ~ " Be je angry, and dn not" So it belongs to the holiness of Ood not to let sin go 
unchallenged. God not only shcnm anger, but he is angry. It is the wrath of Ood 
which sin must meet, and which Christ must meet when he is numbered with the 
transgressors. Death was the cup of which he was to drink ( Hat. 20 : 22; John 18 : 11 ), and 
which he drained to the dregs. Mason, Faith of the Gospel, 196— ^* Jesus alone of all 
men truly ' tasted death ' ( Heb. 2:9). Some men are too stolid and unimaginative to taste it. 
To Christians the bitterness of death is gone, just because Christ died and rose again. 
But to Jesus its terrors were as yet undiminished. He resolutely set all his faculties to 
sound to the depths the dreadf ulness of djing.** 

We therefore cannot agree with either Wendt or Johnson in the following quota- 
tions. Wendt, Tc>aching of Jesus, 2:349, SGO—** The forsaking of the Father was not 
an absol u te one, since Jesus still called him ' Ij God ' ( Mat 27 : 46 ). Jesus felt the tailing ot 
that energy of spirit which had hitherto upheld him, and he expresses simply his ardent 
desire and prayer that God would once more grant him his power and assistance.** 
E. 11. Johnson, The Holy Spirit, 148, 144— *' It is not even necessary to believe that God 
hid his face from Christ at the last moment. It is necessary only to admit that Christ 
no longer saw the Father's face. ... He felt that it was so ; but it was not so.** These 
explanations make Christ^ sufferings and Christ's words unreal, and to our mind they 
are inconsistent with both his deity and his atonement. 

(/) The actual power of the atonement over the hmnan oonsoienoe and 
heart is due» not to its exhibiting Qod*s regard for law, but to its exhibit- 
ing an actual execution of law, and an actual satisfaction of violated 
holiness made by Christ in the sinner's stead. 

Whiton, Gloria Patri, 143, 144, claims that Christ is the propitiation for our sins only 
by bringing peace to the conscience and satisfying the divine demand that is felt therein. 
Whiton regards the atonement not as a governmental work outsida of us, but as an 
educational work within. Aside from the objection that this view merges God's tran- 
scendence in his immanence, we urge the words of Matthew Henry: ** Nothing can 
satisfy an offended conscience but that which satisfied an offended God.*' C. J. Baldwin : 
*^ The lake spread out has no moving power ; it turns the mill-wheel only when con- 
tracted into the narrow stream and pouring over the fall. So the wide love of God 
moves men, only when it is concentrated into the saorlfloe of the cross.' 



*f 



{ff) The theory contradicts all those passages of Scripture which repre- 
sent the atonement as necessary ; as propitiating God himself ; as being a 
revelation of God's righteousness ; as being an execution of the penalty of 
the law ; as making salvation a matter of debt to the believer, on the ground 
of what Christ has done ; as actually purging our sins, instead of making 
that purging possible ; as not simply assuring the sinner that God may 
now pardon him on account of what Christ has done, but that Christ has 
actually wrought out a complete salyation, and -will bestow it upon all who 
come to him. 

John Bunyan, Pilgrim's Progress, chapter vl— " Upon that place stood a Cross, and 
a little below, in the bottom, a Sepulchre. So I saw in my dream, that Just as Christian 
came up with the Cross, his burden loosed from off his shoulders, and fell from off his 
back, and begun to tumble, and so continued to do, till it came to the mouth of the 
Sepulchre, where it fell in, and I saw it no more. Then was Christian glad and light>- 
sorae, and said with a merry heart. He hath given me rest by his sorrow, and life by 
bis death. Then he stood still awldle to look and wonder; ft>r it was very surprising 
to hira tlint the sight of the Cross should thus ease him of his biinlen." 

John Buuyan's story is truer to Christian experience than is the Governmental 



744 CHBI8T0L0GY, OR THE DOCTRINE OF REDEMPTION. 

theory. The sinner finds peace, not by coming- to Qod with a distant respect to Christ, 
but by cominur directly to the "Lamb of God, whiek Uketh avay tk« dn of the verld " (J<itol:29). 
Christ's words to every conscious sinner arc simply : " Come onto me " ( laU 11 : 28 X Upon the 
ground of what Christ has done, salvation Is a matter of debt to the believer. 1 Jokn 1 : 9 
— "Ifveeonfessoarnni, be is fiuthftil and rigbteoas to ftrglTt u our sins "—faithful to his promise, 
and righteous to Christ. The Governmental theory, on the other hand, tends to dis- 
courage the sinner's direct access to Christ, and to render the way to conscious accept- 
ance with Qod more circuitous and less certain. 

When The Outlook says : " Not even to the Son of God must we come instead of 
ooming to God/' we can see only plain denial of the validity of Christ's demands and 
promises, for he demands inunediate submission when he bids the sinner follow him, 
and ho promises immediate salvation when he assures all who come to him that he will 
not cast them out. The theory of Grotius is legal and speculative, but It is not Script- 
ural, nor does it answer the needs of human nature. For criticism of Albert Barnes's 
doctrine, see Watts, New Apologetic, 21O-O0O. For criticism of the Grotian theory in 
general, see Shedd, Hist. Doctrine, 2 : 347-360 ; Crawford, Atonement, 367 ; Cunningham, 
Hist. Theology, 2 : 866 ; Princeton Essays, 1 : 259-292 ; Essay on Atonement, by Abp. 
Thomson, in Aids to Faith ; Mcllvainc, Wisdom of Holy Scripture, 194-196; S. H. Tyng, 
Christian Pastor ; Charles Hodge, Essays, 129-184 ; Lidgett, Spir. Prin. of Atonement, 
151-154. 

4th. The Irvingian Theory, or Theory of Gradnally Extirpated De- 
pravity. 

This holds that, in his incarnation, Christ took hnman nature as it was 
in Adam, not before the Fall, but after the Fall, — human nature, therefore, 
with its inborn corruption and predisposition to moral evil ; that, notwith- 
standing the possession of this tainted and depraved nature, Christ, through 
the power of the Holy Spirit, or of his divine nature, not only kept his 
human nature from manifesting itself in any actual or personal sin, but 
gradually purified it, through struggle and suffering, until in his death he 
completely extirj^ated its original depravity, and reunited it to God. This 
subjective purification of human nature in the person of Jesus Christ con- 
stitutes his atonement, and men are saved, not by any objective propitiation, 
but only by becoming through faith partakers of Christ's new humanity. 
This theory was elaborated by Edward Irving, of London ( 1792-1834 ), and 
it has been held, in substance, by Menken and Dippel in Germany. 

Irving was in this preceded by Felix of Urgella, in Spain (tSlS), whom Alouin 
^Apposed. Felix said that the Logos united with human nature, without sanctifying it 
beforehand. Edward Irving, in his early life colleague of Dr. Chalmers, at Glasgow, 
was in his later years a preacher, in London, of the National Church of Scotland. F6r 
his own statement of hJs view of the Atonement, see his Collected Works, 5 : 9-^98. See 
also Life of Irving, by Mrs. Ollphant; Menken, Schriften, 3: 279-404; 6:33l8g.; Oue- 
rickc, in Studien und Kritlken, 1848 : Heft 2 ; David Brown, in Expositor, Oct. 1887 : 2G4 
sq., and letter of Irving to Marcus Dods, in British Weekly, Mch. 25, 1887. For other 
references, see Hogenbach, Hist. Doct., 2 : 496-498. 

Irving's followers differ in their representation of his views. Says Miller, Hist, and 
Doct. of Irvingism, 1 :85~" If indeed we made Cluist a sinner, then indeed all creeds 
are at an end and we are worthy to die the death of blasphemers. . • . The miraculous 
conception depriveth him of human personality, and it also deprivoth him of original 
sin and guilt needing to be atoned for by another, but It doth not deprive him of the 
substance of sinful flesh and blood,— that is, flesh and blood the same with the flceh 
and blood of his brethren.*' 2 : 14— Freer says: *'So that, despite it was fallen flesh 
ho had assumed, he was, through the Eternal Spirit, bom into the world ' the Holj Thing*.'* 
11-15, 282-305 — " Unfallen humanity needed not redemption, therefore, Jesus did not 
take it. Ho took fallen humanity, but purged it in the act of taking it. The nature 
of which he took part was sinful in the lump, but in his person most holy." 

So, says an Irvingian tract, ^' Being part of the very nature that had incurred the 
penalty of sin, though in his person never having oonuuitted or even thought it» part 



IBVINQIAN THEORY OF THE ATOKEMEKT. 745 

Of tho commoD humanity could suffer that penalty, and did so suffer, to make atone- 
ment for that nature, thou^rh he who took it knew no sin." Dr. Curry, quoted in 
McClintock and Strong, Encyclopaedia, 4:663, 664— *' The Godhead came into vital 
union with humanity fallen and under the law. The last thought carried, to Irvlng's 
realistic mode of thinking, the notion of Christ*s participation in the fallen character 
of humanity, which he desigrnated by terms that implied a real sinfulness in Christ. 
Ho attempted to get rid of the odiousness of that idea, by saying that this was over- 
borne, and at length wholly expelled, by the indwelling Godhead." 

We must regard the later expounders of Irvingian doctrine as having softened down, 
if they have not wholly expunged, its most characteristic feature, as tho following 
quotation from Irving's own words will show: Works, 6:115— "That Christ took our 
fallen nature, is most manifest, because there was no other in existence to take." 123 
— " The human nature is thoroughly fallen ; the mere apprehension of it by the Son 
doth not make it holy." 128 — " His soul did mourn and grieve and pray to God con- 
tinually, that it might be delivered from the mortality, corruption, and temptation 
which it felt in its fleshly tabernacle." 162— ** These sufferings came not by imputa- 
tion merely, but by actual participation of the sinful and cursed thing." Irving fre- 
quently quoted Heb. 2 : 10 — " make the Mthor of thdr salration perfect tlirongh sofferings." 

IrviDg's followers deny Christ's sinfulness, only by assuming that inborn infirmity 
and congenital tendencies to evil are not sin, — in other words, that not native deprav- 
ity, but only actual trangression, is to be denominated sin. Irving, in our Judgment, 
was rightly charged with asserting the sinfulness of Christ's human nature, and it was 
upon this charge that he was deposed from the ministry by the Presbytery in Scotland. 

Irving was of commanding stature, powerful voice, natural and graceful oratory. 
He loved the antique and the grand. For a time in London he was the great popular 
sensation. But shortiy after the opening of his new church In Regent's Square in 1827, 
he found that fashion had taken its departure and that his church was no longer 
crowded. He concluded that the world was under the reign of Satan ; he became a 
fanatical millennarian ; he gave himself wholly to the study of prophecy. In 1830 he 
thought the apostolic gifts were revived, and he held to the hope of a restoration of 
the primitive church, although he himself was relegated to a comparatively subordi- 
nate position. He exhausted his energies, and died at the age of forty-two. " If I had 
married Irving," said Mrs. Thomas Carlyle, ** there would have been no tongues." 

To this theory we oflfer the following objections : 

( a ) While it embraces an important element of truth, namely, the fact 

of a new humanity in Christ of which all believers become partakers, it is 

chargeable with serious error in denying the objective atonement which 

makes the subjective application possible. 

Bruce, in his Humiliation of Christ, calls this a theory of " redemption by sample.** 
It is a purely subjective atonement which Irving has in mind. Deliverance from sin, 
in order to deliverance from penalty, is an exact reversal of the Scripture order. Yet 
this deliverance from sin, in living's view« was to be secured in an external and 
mechanical way. He held that It was the Old Testament economy which should abide, 
while the New Testament economy should pass away. This is Sacramentarianism, or 
dependence upon the external rite, rather than upon the internal grace, as essential to 
salvation. The followers of Irving are Sacramentarians. The crucifix and candles, 
incense and gorgeous vestments, a highly complicated and symbolic ritual, they regard 
as a necessary accompaniment of religion. They feel the need of extenfld authority, 
visible and permanent, but one that rests upon inspiration and continual supernatural 
help. They do not find this authority, as the Romanists do, in the Pope, —they find It 
in their new Apostles and Prophets. The church can never be renewed, as they think, 
except by the restoration of all the ministering orders mentioned in Bph. 4 : 11 — " apoetlit 
.... prophets .... eTtngelists .... putars .... teadien." But the N. T. mark of an apostle is that 
Christ has appeared to him. Irving's apostles cannot stand this test. See Lathardt, 
Errinerungen aus vergangenen Tagen, 237. 

( & ) It rests upon false fundamental principles, — as, that law is identical 
with the natural order of the universe, and as such, is an exhaustive expres- 
sion of the \^'ill and nature of God ; that sin is merely a power of moral evil 
within the soul, instead of also involving an objective guilt )Euid desert of 



746 CHBISTOLOQYy OB THE DOCTRINE OF BEDEMPTIOK. 

ptmishment ; that penalty is the mere reaction of law against the trans- 
gressor, instead of being also the revelation of a personal wrath against 
sin ; that the evil taint of human nature can be extirpated by suffering its 
natural consequences, — penalty in this way reforming the transgressor. 

Domer, Glaubenslehre, 2 : 408 ( Syst. Doct., 8 : 861, affi ) — *' On Irving's theoiy, evil 
Inclinations are not sinful. Sinfulness belong only to evil acts. The loose connection 
between the Logos and humanity savors of Nestorianism. It is the work of the person 
to rid itself of somethiner in the humanity which does not render it really sinfuL I^ 
Jesus* sinfulness of nature did not render his person sinful, this must be true of us,— 
which is a Pelagian element, revealed also in the denial that for our redemption we need 
Christ as an atoning sacrifice. It is not necessary to a complete incarnation for Christ 
to take a sinful nature, unless sin is eaential to human nature. In Irving^'s view, the 
death of Christ's body works the regeneration of his sinful nature. But this is to make 
sin a merely physical thing, and the body the only part of man needing redemption.*' 
Penalty would thus become a reformer, and death a Savior. 

Irving hold that there are two kinds of sin : 1. guiltless sin ; 2. guilty sin. Passive 
depravity is not guilty ; it is a part of man's sensual nature ; without it we would not 
be human. But the moment this fallen nature expresses itself in action, it becomes 
guilty. Irving near the close of his life claimed a sort of sinless perfection ; for so long 
as he could keep this sinful nature inactivf\ and be guided by the Holy Spirit, he was 
free from sin and guilt. Christ took this passive sin, that he might be like unto his 
brethren, and that he might be able to sufT er. 

( c ) It contradicts the express and implicit representations of Scripture, 
with regard to Ohrist*s freedom from all taint of hereditary depravity ; mis- 
represents his life as a growing consciousness of the underlying corruption 
of his human nature, which culminated at Gethsomane and Calvary ; and 
denies the truth of his own statements, when it declares tliat he must have 
died on account of his own depravity, even though none were to be saved 
thereby. 

** I shall maintain until death," said Irving, **that the flesh of Christ was as rebellious 
as ours, as fallen as ours. . . . Human nature was corrupt to the core and black as hell, 
and this is the human nature the Son of Ood took upon himself and was clothed with." 
The Rescuer must stand as deep in the mire as the one he rescu<}s. There was no sub- 
stitution. Christ waged war with the sin of his own flesh and he expelled it. His glory 
was not in saving others, but in saving himself, and so demonstrating the power of man 
through the Holy Spirit to cast out sin from his heart and life. Irving held that his 
theory was the only one taught in Scripture and held from the first by the church. 

Nicoll, Life of Clirist, 183— **A11 others, as they grow in holiness, grow in their sense 
of sin. But when Christ is forsaken of the Father, he asks ' Why ? ' well knowing that 
the reason is not in his sin. He never makes confession of sin. In his longest prayer, 
the preface is an assertion of righteousness : 'I gloriflad thee * ( John 17 : 4 ). His last utter- 
ance from the cross is a quotation from Pi. 31 : 5 — ' Father, into thy hudi I oommend mj ipirit ( Luke 
23 : 46 ), but he does not add, as the Psalm does, 'tboa hut ndeemed ma, Lord God of troth,' for he 
needed no redemption, being himself the Redeemer.*' 

( d) It makes the active obedience of Christ, and the subjective purifi- 
oation of his human nature, to be the chief features of his work, while the 
Scriptures make his death and passive bearing of penalty the centre of 
all, and ever regard him as one who is personally pure and who vicariously 
bears the punishment of the guilty. 

In Irving's theory there is no imputation, or representation, or substitution. His only 
idea of sacrifice is that sin itself shall be sacrificed, or annihilated. The many subjective 
theories of the atonement show that the offence of the cross has not ceased ( GaL 5 : 11 — 
"then h&th the etunhUng-blook of the ana been done avaj " ). Christ crucified is still a stumbling- 
block to modem speculation. Yet it is, as of old, "the power of God nnto lalTation " ( Rom. i : 16 ; 
e/. i Cor. 1 : 23, 24 — *' we praoh Christ enudfied, unto Jewi a ttnmbling-bloclc and nnto Gentiles fooliihnen ; but onto 
th«m that an oalH both Jews ud Gnak% Okiit tiM p<nr«r of God, and tiM wiidom 



AN8ELMIC THEOBY OF THE ATONEMENT. 747 

• 

Ab the ocean receives the impurities of the rivers and pursres them, so Irving repre> 
sented Christ as receiving into himself the impurities of humanity and purging the race 
from its sin. Here is the sense of defilement, but no sense of guilt ; subjective pollu- 
tion, but no objective condemnation. We take precisely opposite ground from that of 
Irving, namely, that Christ had, not hereditary depravity, but hereditary guilt ; that ho 
was under obligation to suffer for the sins of the race to which he had historically 
united himself, and of which he was the creator, the upholder, and the life. He was 
*'Bad« te be lin oo ov behalf" (3 Cor. 5 : 21 ), not in the sense of one dellled, as Irving thought, 
but in the sense of one condemned to bear otur Iniquities and to suffer their penal con- 
sequences. The test of a theory of the atonement, as the test of a religion, is its power 
to ** cleanse that red right hand " of Lady Macbeth ; in other words, its power to satisfy 
the divine Justice of which our condemning conscience is only the reflection. The 
theory of Irving has no such power. Dr. B. G. Robinson verged toward Irving's view, 
when he claimed that *' Christ cook human nature as he foimd it.'* 

(e) It necessitates the surrender of the doctrine of j'ustification as a 
merely declaratory act of God ; and requires such a view of the divine holi- 
ness, expressed only through the order of nature, as can be maintained 
only upon principles of pantheism. 

Thomas Aquinas inquired whether Christ was slain by himself, or by another. The 
question suggests a larger one — wtiether God has constituted other forces than his 
own, personal and impersonal. In the universe, over against which ho stands in his 
transcendence ; or whether all his activity Is merged in, and identical with, the activity 
of the creature. The theory of a merely subjective atonement is more consistent with 
the latter view than the former. For criticism of Irvlngian doctrine, see Studien und 
Kritiken, 1845 : 319 ; 1877 : 354^374 ; Princeton Rev., April, 1863 : 207; Christian Rev., 28 : 
234 8q.; Ullmann, Slnlessness of Jesus, 219-232. 

5th. The Anselmic, or Commercial Theory of the Atonement. 

This theory holds that sin is a violation of the divine honor or majesty, 
and, as committed against an infinite being, deserves an infinite punish- 
ment ; that the majesty of God requires him to execute punishment, while 
the love of God pleads for the sparing of the guilty ; that this conflict of 
divine attributes is eternally reconciled by the voluntary sacrifice of the 
God-man, who bears in virtue of the dignity of his person the intensively 
infinite punishment of sin, which must otherwise have been suffered exten- 
sively and eternally by sinners ; that this suffering of the God-man presents 
to the divine majesty an exact equivalent for the deserved sufferings of the 
elect ; and that, as the result of this satisfaction of the divine claims, the 
elect sinners are pardoned and regenerated. This view was first broached 
by Anselm of Canterbury ( 1033-1109) as a substitute for the earlier patris- 
tic view that Christ's death was a ransom paid to Satan, to deliver sinners 
from his power. It is held by many Scotch theologians, and, in this 
country, by the Princeton SchooL 

The old patristic theory, which the Anselmic view superseded, has been called the 
Military theory of the Atonement. Satan, as a captor in war, had a right to his cap- 
tives, which could bo bought oflT only by ransom. It was Justin Martyr who first pro- 
pounded this view that Christ paid a ransom to Satan. Gregory of Nyssa added that 
Christ's humanity was the bait with which Satan was attracted to the hidden hook of 
Chrlst*s deity, and so was caught by artifice. Peter Lombard, Sent., 3 : 19—** What did 
the Reedcmer to our captor ? He held out to him his cross as a mouse-trap ; In it he 
set, as a bait, his blood." Even Luther compares Satan to the crocodile which swallows 
the ichneumon, only to find that the little animal cats its insidos out. 

These metaphors show this, at least, that no age of the church has believed in a 
merely subjective atonement. Nor was this relation to Satan the only aspect in which 
the atonement was regarded even by the early church. So early as the fourth century, 
we find a great church Father maintaining that the death of Christ was required by the 



748 OHBiSTOLooy, or the doctrine of bedemptiok. 

tnith and groodness of God. See Crippen« History of Christian Doctrine, 120 — '* Atha- 
nasius (325-373 ) held that the death of Christ was the payment of a debt due to Qod, 
His argrument is briefly this : God, having threatened death as the punishment of sin, 
would be untrue If he did not fulfil his threatening. But it would be equally unworthy 
of the di\ine goodness to permit rational beings, to whom he had imparted his own 
Spirit, to incur this death in consequence of an imposition practiced on them by the 
devil. Seeing then that nothing but death could solve this dilemma, the Word, who 
oouid not die, assumed a mortal body, and, offering his human nature a sacrifice for 
all, fulfilled the law by his death." Gregory Nazianzen ( 3fi0 ) ** retained the figure of a 
ransom, but, clearly perceiving that the analogy was incomplete, he explained the 
death of Christ as an expedient to reconcile the divine attributes." 

But, although many theologians had recognized a relation of atonement to God, none 
before Anselm had given any clear account of the nature of this relation. Anselm's 
acute, brief, and beautiful treatise entitled *^ Cur Deus Homo *' constitutes the greatest 
Single contribution to the discussion of this doctrine. He shows that ** whatever man 
owes, he owes to God, not to the devil. . . . He who does not yield due honor to God, 
withholds from him what Is his, and dishonors him ; and this is sin. ... It is necessary 
that either the stolen honor be restored, or that punishment follow." Man, because of 
original sin, cannot make satisfaction for the dishonor done to God,—'' a sinner cannot 
Justify a sinner." Neither could an angel make this satisfaction. None can make it 
but God. ** If then none can make it but God, and none owes it but man, it must needs 
be wrought out by God, made man." The God-man, to make satisfaction for the sins 
of all mankind, must ** give to God, of his own, something that is more valuable than 
all that is under God." Such a gift of infinite value was his death. The reward of his 
sacrifice turns to the advantage of man, and thus the Justice and love of God are 
reconciled* 

The foregoing synopsis is mainly taken from Crippen, Hist. Christ. Doct., 134, 13S. 
The Cur Deus Homo of Anselm is translated in Bib. Sac., 11 : 720 ; 12 : 52. A synopsis of it 
is given in Lichtenberger's Encyclopedic des Sciences Religieuses, vol. 1, art.: Anselm. 
The treatises on the Atonement by Symington, Candlish, Martin, Smeaton, in Great 
Britain, advocate for substance the view of Anselm, as indeed it was held by Calvin 
before them. In America, the theory is represented by Nathanael Emmons, A. Alex- 
ander, and Charles Hodge ( Syst. Theol., 2 : 470-640 ). 

To this theory we make the following objections : 

(a) While it contains a valuable element of truth, in its representation 
of the atonement as satisfying a principle of the divine nature, it conceives 
of this principle in too formal and external a manner, — making the idea of 
the divine honor or majesty more prominent than that of the divine holi- 
ness, in which the divine honor and majesty are grounded. 

The theory has been called the *' Criminal theory" of the Atonement, as the old 
patristic theory of a ransom paid to Satan has been called the ** Military theory." It 
had its origin in a time when exaggerated ideas prevailed respecting the authority of 
popes and emperors, and when dishonor done to their majesty ( crimen Iceaa; majestatis ) 
was the highest offence known to law. See article by Cramer, in Studien imd Kritiken, 
1880 : 7, on Wurzeln des Anselm'schcn Satisfactionsbegriffes. 

Allen, Jonathan Edwards, 88, 80— "From the point of view of Sovereignty, there 
oould be no necessity for atonement. In Mohammedanism, where sovereignty is the 
supreme and sole theological principle, no need is felt for satisfying the divine Justice. 
God may pardon whom he will, on whatever grounds his sovereign will may dictate. It \ 
therefore constituted a great advance in Latin theology, as also an evidence of its 
Immeasurable superiority to Mohammedanism, when Anselm for the first time. In a 
clear and emphatic manner, had asserted on inward necessity in the being of God that 
his Justice should receive satisfaction for the affront which had been offered to it by 
human sinfulness." 

Henry George, Progress and Poverty, 481 — ** In the days of feudalism, men thought 
of heaven as organized on a feudal basis, and ranked the first and second Persons of 
the Trinity as Suzerain and Tenant-In-Chief." William James, Varieties of Religious 
Experience, 320, 830—-" The monarchical type of sovereignty was, for example, so inerad- 
Icably planted in the mind of our forefathers, that a dose of cruelty and arbitrariness 
in their Deity seems positively to have been required by their imagination. They called 



AN8ELHIC THEORY OF THE ATOKEMENT. 749 

the cruelty 'retributivo Jiutioe/ and a God without it would certainly not have struck 
them as suvcreijirn enough. But to-day we abhor the very notion of eternal sulTerini^ 
Inflicted ; and tliat arbitrary dealing out of salvation and damnation to selected Indi- 
vid uals, of which Jonathan Edwards (M>uld iiersuade himself that he had not only a con- 
viction* but a * delightful conviction/ us of a doctrine * exceeding pleasant, bright, and 
sweet,' appears to us, if sovereignly anything, sovereignly Irrational and moan." 

( 6 ) In its eagerness to maintain the atoning efficacy of Christ's passive 
obedience, the active obedience, (juite as clearly expressed in Soriptore, ia 
insofficiently emphasized and well nigh lost sight oL 

Neither Chrlst^s active obedience alone, nor Christ's obedient passion alone, can save 
us. As we shall see hereafter, in our examination of the doctrine of Justification, 
the latter was needed as the ground upon which our penalty could be remitted ; tlie 
former as the ground upon which we might be admitted to the divine favor. Calvin 
has reflected the passive element in Ansclm's view, in the following passages of his 
Institutes : II, 17 : 8—** God, to whom we were hateful through sin, was appeased by 
the death of his Son, and was made propitious to us." ... II, 16 : 7~'* It is necessary to 
consider how he substituted himself in order to pay the price of our redemption. 
Death held us under its yoke, but he, in our place, delivered himself into its power, that 
he might exempt us from it." ... 1 1, 16 : 2 — '* Christ interposed and bore what, by the 
Just Judgment of God, was impending over sinnera ; with his own blood expiated the 
sin which rendered them hateful to God ; by this expiation satisfied and duly propitia- 
ted the Father ; by this interctjsion appeased his anger ; on this basis founded peace 
between God and men ; and by this tie secured the divine benevolence toward them." 

It has been said that Anselm regarded Christ's death not as a vicarious punishment, 
but as a voluntary sacrifice in compensaticm for which the guilty were released and 
Justified. So Keander, Hist. Christ. Dogmas ( Bohn ), 3 : 617, understands Anselm to 
teach ** the necessity of a satisf actio vicaria activa," and sa}rs: " We do not find in his 
writings the doctrine of a satisfactio passi va ; he nowhere says that Christ had endured 
the punishment of men." Shedd, Hist. Christ. Doctrine, 2 : 282, thinks this a misunder- 
standing of Anselm. The Encyclopu^ia Britannica takes the view of Shedd, when it 
speaks of Christ's suflferlngs as pi>nalty : ** The Justice of man demands satisfaction ; 
and as an insult to Infinite honor is itself infinite, the satisfaction must be infinite, i. e.. 
It must outweigh all that is not God. Such a penalty can only be paid by God himself, 
and, as a ])enalty for man, must be paid under the form of man. Satisfaction is only 
ixissible through the God-man. Now this God-man, as sinless, is exempt from the pun- 
ishment of sin ; his passion is therefore voluntary, not given as due. The merit of it is 
therefore infinite ; God's Justice is thus appeased^ and his mercy may extend to man." 
The truth then appears to be that Anselm held Christ's obedience to be passive, in that 
he satisfied God's Justice by enduring punishment which the sinner deserved ; but that 
he held this same obedience of Christ to be active, in that ho endured this penalty 
voluntarily, when there was no obligation upon him so to do. 

Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 2 : 431, 461, 462 — " Christ not only suffered the penalty, 
but obeyed the precept, of the law. In this cose law and Justice get their whole dues. 
But when lost man only suffers the penalty, but does not obey the precept, the law is 
defrauded of a part of its dues. No law Is completely obeyed, if only its penalty is 
endured. . . . Consequently, a sinner can never completely and exhaustively satisfy 
the divine law, however much or long ho may suffer, because he cannot at one and the 
same time endure the penalty and obey the precept. Ho owes ' tan thonand talrats ' and has 
'not vhanwith to ptj ' ( Mat 18 : 24, 25 ). But Christ did both, and therefore he 'nugniflad t^ Uv 
and Buda it hononbla ' ( Ii. 42 : 21 ), in an infinitely higher degree than the whole human family 
would have done, had they all personally suffered for their sins." C/. Edwards, Works, 
1:406. 

( c ) It allows disproportionate weight to those passages of Scripture 
which represent the atonement under commercial analogies, as the pay- 
ment of a debt or ransom, to the exclusion of those which describe it 
as an ethical fact, whose value is to be estimated not quantitatiyely, but 
qualitatively. 

Milton, Paradise Lost, 3: 200-212— "Die he, or Justice must, unless for him Some 
•ther, able and as willing, pay The rigid satisfaction, death for death." The nuUn text 



750 CHRISTOL06T, OB THE DOCTRIXB OF REDEMFTIOK. 

relJ<-4 upon l^ tlie Mf v^ocates of the Cominercia] tlieorj fsbLMia — *sh«Ui]ifca: 
fv Buj. ' Plleiderer, Philosopby of Beli^on. 1 : 257 — ** The work of ChiiBt, as Anaelin 
oriostrued it, was in fact nothinir etee than the prototype of the meritorloas perform- 
anoei and aatiafactioaa of the ecclesiastical saints, and was therefore, from the point of 
▼lew of the mediseral church, thought out quite loglcallT'. All the more remarkable is 
ft that the churches of the Beformation could be satisfied with this theory, notwith- 
standing that it stood in complete oontradictioo to their deeper moral oonacioiiBDesB. 
If, aooordinff to Protestant principles geDerail j, there are no supererogatorj meritor- 
ious works, then one would suppose that such cannot be accepted eren in the OMe of 
JesoB.** 

B. O. Bobinson, Christian Theology, 258— **The Ansrimic theory was rejected by 
Abelard for grounding the atonement in Justice instead of beoevoieiioe, and for takinflr 
Insufllcient account of the power of Christ's sulferings and death in procnring^ a sub- 
jective change in man." Encyc Brit., 2 : 98 (art.: Anselm)— **ThlB theory has exer- 
ciaed immense influence on the form of churdi doctrine. It is certainly an advance on 
the older patristic theory, in so fmr as it substitutes for a contest between God and 
Satan, a contest between the goodness and justice of God; but it puts the whole rela- 
tion on a merely legal footing, gives it no ethical bearing, and neglects altogether the 
consciousness of the individual to be redeemed. In this respect it contrasts unfavor* 
ably with the later theory of Abelard.*^ 

(d) It represents the atonement as having reference only to the elect, 
and ignores the Scriptore declarations that Christ died for all. 

Aiwelm, like Augustine, limited the atonement to the elect. Yet Leo the Great, in 
4SL, had afflrmed that **so precious is the shedding of Christ^s blood for the unjust, that 
if the whole universe of captives would believe in the Bedeemer, no chain of the devil 
could hold them*' (Crippen, 182). Bishop Gailor, of the Episcopal Church, heard 
General Bootl^at Memphis say in IMS : ** Friends, Jesus shed bis blood to pay the price, 
and he bought from God enough salvation to go round.*' The Bishop says: ^ I felt 
that his view of salvation was different from mine. Tet such teaching, partial as it is, 
lifts men by the thousand from the mire and vice of sin into the power and purity of a 
new life in Jesus Christ." 

Foster, Christian Life and Theology, 221— ^Anselm does not clearly connect the death 
of Christ with the punishment of sin, since he makes it a supererogatory work volun- 
tarily done, in consequence of which it is * fitting * that forgiveness should be bestowed 
on sinners. . . . Tet bis theory served to hand down to later theologians the great idea 
of the objective atonement." 

( 6 ) It is defective in holding to a merely external transfer of the merit 
of Ghrist*s work, while it does not dearly state the internal ground of that 
transfer, in the nnion of the believer with Christ 

This needed supplement, namely, the doctrine of the Union of the Believer with 
Christ, was furnished by Thomas Aquinas, Summa, pars 8, qufps. 8. The Anselmio 
thef>ry is llomanLst in its tendency, as the theory next to be mentioned is Protestant in 
its tendency. P. 8. Moxom asseris that salvation is not by substitution, but by incorpo- 
ration. We prefer to say that salvation is by substitution, but that the substitution 
is by incorporation. Incorporation involves substitution, and another's pain inures to 
my acreount. Christ being incorporate with humanity, all the exposures and liabilities 
of humanity fell upon him. Simon, Reconciliation by Incarnation, is an attempt to 
unite the two elements of the doctrine. 

Lidgett, Spir. Prin. of Atonement, 138-189— ''As Anselm represents it, Christ's death 
is not ours in any such sense that we can enter into it. Bushnell Justly charges that it 
leaves no moral dynamic in the Cross." For criticism of Anselm, see John Caird, 
Fund. Ideas of Christianity. 2: 172-193: Thomasius, Christ! Person und Work, 111,2: 
230-241 ; Phiiippl, Glaubcnslehre, rv, 2 : 70 sg.; Baur, Doflrmengeschichte, 2 : 416 tiq.; 8hedd« 
Hist Doct., 2 : 273-286; Dalo, Atonement, 279-292; MoUvaine, Wisdom of Holy Script- 
ure, 196-199; Kreibiff, VersOhnungslehrc, 176-178. 

6th, The Ethical Theory of the Atonement. 

In propounding what we conceive to be the true theory of the atone- 
menty it seems desirable to divide our treatment into two parts. No theory 



ETHICAL THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. 751 

can be satisfaoiory livhich does not famish a solution of the two problems : 
1. What did the atouoment aooomplish ? or, in other words, what was the 
object of Christ's death ? The answer to this question must be a descrip- 
tion of the atonement in its relation to holiness in God. 2. What were the 
means used? or, in other words, how coold Christ justly die ? The answer 
to this question must be a description of the atonement as arising from 
Christ's relation to humanity. We take up these two parts of the subject 
in order. 

Edwards, Works, 1 : 609, aays that two things make Christ's sufferinirs a satisfaction 
for human guilt : ( 1 ) their equality or equivalence to the punishment that the sinner 
deserves ; ( 2 ) the union between him and them, or the propriety of his being accepted, 
in suffering, as the representative of the sinner. Christ bore God's wrath : ( 1 ) by the 
sight of sin and punishment; (2) by enduring the effects of wrath ordered by Ood. 
See also Edwards, Sermon on the Satisfaction of Christ. These statements of Edwards 
suggest the two points of view from which we regard the atonement ; but they come 
short of the Scriptural declarations, in that they do not distinctly assert Christ's endur- 
ance of penalty itself. Thus they leave the way open for the New School theories of 
the atonement, propounded by the successors of Edwards. 

Adolphe Monod said well : " Save first the holy law of my Gk>d, —after that you shall 
save me." Edwards felt the first of these needs, for he says, in his Mysteries of Script- 
ure, Works, 3 : 512— ** The necessity of Christ's satisfaction to divine Justice is, as it 
were, the centre and hinge of all doctrines of pure revelation. Other doctrines are 
comparatively of little importance, except as they have respect to this.'* And in his 
Work of Redemption, Works, 1 : 412— ** Christ was born to the end that ho might die ; 
and therefore he did, as it were, begin to die as soon as he was bom." See John 12 : 32 — 
"ind I, if I be lifted up tnm the Murtli, vill inw all iD«n onto mptliL But thii he eaid, eignifjrin; bj whit manner 
of death he ahoold die." Christ was ** lifted np": 1. as a propitiation to the holiness of God, 
which makes suffering to follow sin, so affording the only ground for pardon without 
and |>oace within ; 2. as a power to purify the hearts and lives Of men, Jesus being as 
''the eerpent lifted t^ in the wildemeei" (John 8 : 14), and we overcoming "beeaoBe of the blood of the Lamb" 
(Rer. 12:11). 

IHrat, — the Atonement as related to Holiness in Gk>d. 

The Ethical theory holds that the necessitj of the atonement is grounded 

in the holiness of Ood, of which conscience in man is a finite reflection. 

There is an ethical principle in the divine nature, which demands that sin 

shall be punished. Aside from its results, sin is essentially ill-deser^-ing. 

As we who are made in Gk)d's image mark our growth in purity by the 

increasing quickness with which we detect impurity, and the iucreaHing 

hatred which we feel toward it, so infinite purity is a consuming fire to all 

iniquity. As there is an ethical demand in our natures that not only 

others' wickedness, but our own wickedness, be visited with punishment, 

and a keen conscience cannot rest till it has made satisfaction to justice 

for its misdeeds, so there is an ethical demand of God's nature that penalty 

follow sin. 

The holiness of Qod has conscience and penalty for its correlates and consequences. 
Oordon, Christ of To-day, 216 — ** In old Athens, the rock on whotic top sat the Court of 
the Areopagus, representing the highest reason and the best character of the Athen- 
ian state, had underneath it the Cave of the Furies." Shakespeare knew human 
nature and he bears witness to its need of atonement. In his last Will and Testament 
he writes : ** First, I commend my soul into the hands of God, my Creator, hoping and 
assuredly believing, tJtirough the only merits of J(«us Christ my Savior, to be made 
partaker of life everlasting.'* Kichard III, 1 : 4 — " I charge you, as you hope to have 
redemption By Christ's dear blood shed for our grievous sins, That you depart and lay 
no hands on me." Richard II, 4:1 — "The world's Ransom, blessed Mary's Son." 
Henry VI, 2d part, 8 : 2— '^That droad King took our state upon him. To free us from 



752 CHRISTOLOOY, OB THE DOCTRINE OF BEDEMPTIOK. 

his Father's wrathful curse." Henry IV, Ist part, 1:1-" Those holy fields. Over whose 
acres walked those blcsw.'d feet, Which fourteen hundred years ago were nailed For 
our a<lvanUigo on the bitter Cross." Measure for Measure, 2:2 — " Why, all the souls 
that are were forfeit once ; And he that mifirht the vantage best have took Found out 
the remedy." Henry VI, 2d part, 1:1—*' Now. by the death of him that died for all 1 " 
All's Well that Ends Well, 3:4 — " What angel shall Bless this unworthy husband ? He 
cannot thrive Unless her prayers, whom heaven delights to hoar And loves to grants 
reprieve him from the wrath Of greatest justice." See a good statement of the Ethical 
theory of the Atonement in its relation to Ood's hoUneas, in Denney, Studies in Theol- 
ogy, 100-124. 

Puniahinent is the constitutional reaction of God's being against moral 
evil — the self-assertion of infinite holiness against its antagonist and 
would-be destroyer. In God this demand is devoid of all passion, and is 
consistent with infinite benevolence. It is a demand that cannot be 
evaded, since the holiness from which it springs is unchanging. The 
atonement is therefore a satisfaction of the ethical demand of the divine 
nature, by the substitution of Christ's penal sufferings for the punishment 
of the guilty. 

John Wessel, a Reformer before the Reformation ( 1419-1489 ) : ''Ipse deus. Ipse 
sacerdos, ipse hostia, pro se, de se, sibi satlsfecit" — *' Himself being at the same time 
God, priest, and sacrificial victim, he made satisfaction to himself, for himself [i. e., 
for the sins of men to whom he had united himself] , and by himself [ by his own sin- 
less sufferings ]." Quarles's Emblems : ** O grroundless deeps ! O love beyond d^ri'ee I 
The Offended dies, to set the offender free 1 " 

Spurgeon, Autobiography, 1 : 98—*' When I was In the hand of the Holy Spirit, under 
conviction of sin, I had a clear and sharp sense of the Justice of God. Sin, whatever it 
might be to other people, became to me an Intolerable burden. It was not so much 
that I feared hell, as that I feared sin ; and all the while I had upon my mind a deep 
concern for the honor of God's name and the integrity of his moral government. I felt 
that it would not satisfy my conscience if I could be forgiven unjustly. But then 
there came the question : * How could God be Just, and yet Justify me who had l)een 
so guilty? * .... The doctrine of the atonement is to my mind one of the surest proofs 
of the inspiration of Holy Scripture. Who would or could have thought of the Just 
Ruler dying for the unjust rebel ? " 

This substitution is unknown to mere law, and above and beyond the 
powers of law. It is an operation of grace. Grace, however, does not 
violate or suspend law, but takes it up into itself and fulfils it. The right- 
eousness of law is maintained, in that the source of all law, the judge and 
punisher, himself voluntarily submits to bear the penalty, and bears it in 
the human nature that has sinned* 

Matheson, Moments on the Moimt, 221 — ''In conscience, man condemns and is con- 
demned. Christ was God in the flesh, both priest and sacrificial victim ( Heb. 9 : 12 ). He 
Is ' full of grace ' — forgiving grace — but he is ' fall of truth ' also, and so * the onJ j-begotten fram the 
Father ' ( John 1 : 14 ). Not forgiveness that ignores sin, not Justice that has no mercy. He 
forgave the sinner, because he bore the sin." Kaftan, referring to some modern the- 
ologians who have returned to the old doctrine but who have said that the basis of the 
atonement is, not the Juridical idea of punishment, but the ethical idea of propitiation, 
aflirms as follows : ** On the contrary the highest ethical idea of propitiation is just 
that of punishment. Take this away, and propitiation becomes nothing but thu 
Inferior and unworthy idea of appeasing the wrath of an incensed deity. Precisely the 
idea of the vicarious suffering of punishment is the idea which must in some way be 
brought to a full expression for the sake of the ethical consciousness. 

** The conscience awakened by God can accept no forgiveness which is not experienced 
as at the same time a condemnation of sin. . . . Jesus, though he was without sin and 
deserved no punishment, took upon himself all the evils which have come into the 
world as the consequence and punishment of sin, even to the shameful death on the 
Cross at the hand of sinners. • • • Consequently for the good of man he bore all that 



ETHICAL THEORY OF THB ATONEMENT. 758 

which man had dceerved, and thereby has man escaped the floal eternal punishment 
and has l)ecome a child of God. . . . This is not merely a subjective conclusion upon 
the related facts, but it Is as objective and real as anythlntr which faith reoo^nizes and 
knows." 

Thus the atonement answers the ethical demand of the divine nature 
that sin be punished if the offender is to go free. The interests of the 
divine government are secured as a first subordinate result of this satisfac- 
tion to €k>d himself, of whose nature the government is an expression ; 
while, as a second subordinate result, provision is made for the needs of 
human nature, — on tlio one hand the need of an objective satisfaction to 
its ethical demand of punishment for sin, and on the other the need of a 
manifestation of divine love and mercy that will affect the heart and move 
it to repentance. 

The great classical pasea^re with reference to the atonement is Rom. 8 : 25, 26 
— '*vham God Mt fivth to be a propituitioii, throo^ frith, in Us blood, to ilu>v liii rightooameM booanae of Um pt»- 
Id; OTor of the li&t done afbretime, in the forbeannce of God ; for the ihoving, I uj, of hia righteooanen at thia 
pnaent aeason : that ha might himtelf be jut, and the jnstifler of him that hath &ith in Jeaoa." Or, somewhat 
more freely translated, the pasaa^re would read : — " vhom God hath let forth in hia blood u a pro- 
pitiatory laoriliM^ throng frith, to ihow forth hii righteooaneii on aooonnt of the preternuanon of paat offenoes in the 
ferbeanmee of God ; to declare hia righteooaneii in the time now pareient, m that he may be Just and yet may josti^ 
him who belioTeth in Jesoa." 

ExposmoN OF KoM. 8 : 25, 26. —These verses are an expanded statement of the sub- 
ject of the epistle — the revelation of the " righteoosneis of God "( — the righteousness which 
Ood provides and which Grod accepts ) — which had been uientioned in 1 : 17, but which 
now has new liffht thrown upon it by the demonstration, in 1 : 18— 3 : 20, that both Gen- 
tiles and Jews are under condemnation, and are alike shut up for salvation to some 
other method than that of works. We subjoin the substance of Meyer's comments 
upon this passage. 

'* YerM 25. 'God has set &rth Christ u an effeetnal propitiatory offering, through faith, by means of hia blood,* 
i. «., in that he caused him to shod his blood. <V r4» avroO alfiart. belongs to vpo^dcro, not 
to vioTcwf. The purpose of this setting forth in his blood is <i« cyjci^iv t^« fiixaioo-vioit 
«vTov, 'for the display of his [judicial and punitive] righteonsness,' which received its satisfac- 
tion in the death of Christ as a propitiatory offering, and was thereby practically dem- 
onstrated and exhibited. ' On aooonnt of the paadng-by of sins that had prerioosly taken plaoe,' i. e., 
because he had allowed the pre-Chiistian sins to go without punishment, whereby his 
righteousness had been lost sight of and obscured, and had come to need an tviei^if , or 
exhibition to men. Omittance is not acquittance, vapcaif , pnssiug-by, is intermediate 
between pardon and punishment. * In virtne of the fiorbearanoe of God ' expresses the motive of 
the vapc<ri«. Before Christ's saeriflco, God's administration was a scandal, — it needed 
Vindication. The atonement is God's answer to the charge of freeing the guilty. 

** Verse 28. ci« rb clvai is not epexegetical of eif iviti^tv, but presents the teleology of 
the iXaan^fHov^ the final aim of the whole affirmation from iv irpoedcro to xatpip — namely, 
first, God's being justt and secondly, his appearing jttst in consequence of this. Justus 
€t justiflcans^ iDBtesid of Justus et condemnans^ this Is the summum paradoxon evangelU 
cum. Of this revelation of righteousness, not through condemnation, but through 
atonement, grace is the determining ground." 

We repeat what was said on pages 719, 720, with regard to the teaching of the passage, 
namely, that it shows : ( 1 ) that Christ's death is a propitiatory sacrifice ; (3) that its 
first and main effect is upon God ; ( 3 ) that the particular attribute in God which 
demands the atonement in his Justice, or holiness; (4) that the satisfaction of tills 
holiness is the necessary condition of God's Justifying the believer. It is only incident- 
ally and subordinately that the atonement is a necessity to man ; Paul speaks of it here 
mainly as a necessity to God. Christ suffers, indeed, that God may appear righteous ; 
but behind the appearance lies the reality ; the main object of Christ's suffering is that 
God may he righteous, while ho pardons the believing sinner ; in other words, the 
ground of the atonement Is something internal to God himself. See Heb.2:10— it 
"beoame " God =» it was morally fitting in God, to make Christ suffer ; cf. Zech. 6 : 8— "they that 
go toward the north ooantry hare quieted my spirit in the north ooontry " — the judgments inflicted on Baby- 
lon have satisfied my justice. 

48 






» — 






. ' ' "■*' ^'' " m— '. '. 



«- »• 






. r -^ 



■'.... -_ a 



— -i 



^ * • — ■ ■ • 



1* - 



/,• 



t 



• >- 



•V .- . -7 






. •- -y ^ 



• i. ■ rf .- •*■ ,<-■.. *•"..■■'■.■ 



.;^ 



:-i ;.— : •♦:_■ 



1. — — - ^ "* •r-» 

"^ :i^ - I- - .31- 

:— -"^ ZI -ITU 



/'->',• .. 



.L- * ..; 



/ ■ 



. • » -.*•.* '. » .1. 



I- • r 



.'■ •. . .» 



< 4 



. . I. " —I. - * " •- ' ■ ' 'J* i«i. — — ■ 






• 1 __ 



f. 



V - - 



—1' . .i--.-: 31 -jc 






*> : :i .i*r- :t"»- i .irs uf-:c the 



• .? y : . . ■■ ■.' ■ H ■■ -. J . : 

01 •■.y.*-' rf'* ■■J- * ■!:■■■ ^ ^^ 

/» ' ■..* •. t ■:.:.• ■..'.'. ■•■ "*. ;..-■:■ ••.*: a ..-f- 

*«•'■ •' ■'." »'.•-. • '■ .••...:,=•' .".-a:. ;£,■. :. 

■ " '■ ' • ■ ■' ■ ' ■- .,- A .■ _- — -■., . -h _vv I r . j-7ieitZ'.»Ds: 

' './•:/# ''. .i«',.-,i ,1 ".• ' .■.-». *>.■' i:...: •..*!..;.■ :,,'.,:. li •. !'--.■:.•::- jh r^c-e. It was 
',.../ ./ ...V jf/.,f./ •■.' • ,i* .r«: ',f '/.'r-*: .',«: w, .. i .'»,-:-<:;. r^a". :.■■- c-uli ^ r>-ak iho power 
*ff •,.' .1 ' .»:,'',r . 'I M i, ./fj.ir. r-f '• :fi.jy t^-. i./.*ri«-'. t-j i:.j:iv «; anr-w* who had been 
••'iKf».» ill t.M. itf«iifi *if ijj'- t'i*i*:r. afi'i »«:r«; h'/p<:iisie?:7 strug'ifimg a^ttixist their fate. 




BTUICAL THXOKT OF THE ATOITEMEKT. 755 

A gnat emgle swoops down from the sky, becomes entanirled with the iipaiTows in tlie 
net, and then spreadinir bis miirbty wings be soars upward bearing the* snare and cap- 
tives and breaking its meshca be delivers himself and tbero. . . . Christ the fountain 
bead of life imparting his own vitality to the redeemed, and causing them to share in 
the experiences of ficthsemanc and Cal^'ary, breaking thus for them the power of sin 
and death— this is the atonement, bj virtue of which sin is put away and man is united 
to God." 

Dr. Mullins p ro p er l y regards this view of atonement as too narrow, inasmuch as it 
disregards the dilfereDoes between Christ and men arising from his slnlessness and his 
deity. He adds therefore that ^ 2, Christ became the substitute for sinners ; 3. became 
the representative of men before €kxl ; 4. gained power over human hearts to win 
them ftom sin and rr.'crjneile them to God ; and &. became a propitiation and aatlsfSo- 
tlon, rendering the remiaiion of sins consistent with the dl\ine holiness." If Christ's 
union with the race be one which begins with creation and antedates the Fall, all of 
the later points in the above scheme are only natural correlates and consequences of 
the flrst,— substitution, representation, reconciliation, propitiation, satisfaction, are 
only different aspects of the work which Christ docs for us, by \irtue of the fact that 
he is tlie immanent God, the Lif^ of humanity, priest and victim, condemning and con- 
demned, atoning and atoned. 

We have Been how Qod can justly demand satisfaction ; we now show 
how Christ can justly make it ; or, in other words, how the innocent can 
justly suffer for the guilty. The solution of the problem lies in Christ's 
union with humanity. The first result of that union is obligation to suffer 
for men ; since, being one with the race, Christ had a share in the respon- 
flibility of the race to the law and the justice of God. In him humanity 
wnfl created ; at every stage of its existence huoiauity was upheld by his 
power ; as the immanent God he was the life of the race and of every 
member of it Christ's sharing of man's life justly and inevitably sub- 
jected him to man's ex|x>sures and liabilities, and especially to Gk)d'B 
oondenmation on account of sin. 

In the seventh chapter of Elsie Venner, Oliver Wendell Holmes nmkes the Reverend 
Mr. Honeywood lay aside an old sermon on Human Nature, and write one on The 
Obligations of an Intlnlto Creator to a finite Creature. A. J. F. Ilehreuds ground<Hl 
our Lord's representative relation not in his human nature but in his divine nature. 
*^Heisourrepreeentativenot because be was In the loins of Adam, but because wc, 
Adam included, wore in bis loins. Personal created existence is groundini in the 
Logos, so that God must deal with him as well as with every individual sinner, and sin 
and guilt and punishment must smite the Lok<^ us well as the sluner, and that, whether 
the sinner is saved or not. This ia not, as is often charge4l, a denial of gruco or of free- 
dom in grace, for it Is no denial of freedom or grace to show tlrnt tht;y are eternal ly 
rational and conformable to t'ternal law. In the ideal sphere, necessity and freedom, 
law and grace, coalesce." J. C. C. Clarke, Man and his Divine Father, 387—^* Vicarious 
atonement does not consist In any single act. . . . No one act embraces it all, and no 
one definition can comiwss it." In this sense we may adopt the words of Forsyth : *^ In 
the atontjment the Holy Father dealt with a world's sin on ( not in) a world-soul.'* 

G. U. F(«ter, on MjU. 28 : 53, 54 — "Thinkast thoa that I oumot besaeeh mj Father, ud he shall eren now 
Msd me more than tvelTO Ifg.ona of angeli? Hov then ihoild the Scriptaret be fiiliillad, that thus it must be? " ^* On 
this 'most be ' the Scripture is based, not this 'most be ' on the Scripture. The 'most be ' was 
the ethical demand of his connection with the rac-o. It would have been immoral for 
him to break away from the organism. The law of the organism Is: From each 
according to ability; to each according to need. David in song, Aristotle in logic, 
Darwin in science, are under obligation to contribute to the organism the talent they 
have. Shall they be under obligation, and Jesus go soot-free? But Jesus can con- 
tribute atonement, and because he can, he must. Moreover, he is a member, not only 
of the whole, but of each part,— &om. 12 : 5 — 'members one of another.' As membership of the 
whole makes him liable for the sin of the whole, so his being a member of the part 
makes him liable for the sin of that part." 

SWrbairn, Place of Christ in Modern Theology, 483, 484— ''There is a sense in which 
ftiie PatripasBian theory is right ; the Father did suffer ; though it was not as the Son 



756 CHRISTOLOQY, OR THE DOCTRINE OF REDEMPTION. 

that he suffered, but in modes distinct and different. . . . Through his pity the misery 
of man bec^aine hin sorrow. . . . There* is a disclosure of his sufferiu^r In the surrender 
of the Son. This surrender represented thosacriUce and passion of the whole Godhead. 
Uerc^ degree and proportion are out of place ; were it not, we might say that the 
Father suffered more in giving than the Son in being given. He who gave to duty had 
not the reward of him who rejoiced to do it. . . . One member of the Trinity could not 
suffer without all suffering. . . . The visible sacrifice was that of the Son ; the invisible 
saorifloe was that of the Father." The Andover Theory, represented in Progressive 
Orthodoxy, 43-63, affirms not only the Moral Influence of the Atonement, but also that 
the whole race of mankind is miturally in Christ and was therefore punished in and by 
his suffering and death; quot43d in Hovey, Manual of Christian Theology, 289; see 
Hovey's own view, 270-276, though he does not seem to recognize the atonement as 
existing before the incarnation. 

Christ's share in the responsibility of the race to the law and justice of 
God was not destroyed by his incarnation, nor by his puriUcation in the 
womb of the virgin. In virtue of the organic unity of the race, each mem- 
ber of the race since Adam has been bom into the same state into which 
Adam felL The consequences of Adam's sin, both to himself and to his 
postcirity, are : ( 1 ) depravity, or the corruption of human nature ; ( 2 ) 
guilt, or obligation to make satisfaction for sin to the divine holiness ; 
( 3 ) penalty, or actual endurance of loss or suffering visited by that holi- 
ness upon the guilty. 

Moberly, Atonement and Personality, 117— *^Ctiri8t had taken upon him, as the living 
expression of himself, a nature which was weighed down, not merely by present inca- 
pacities, but by present incapacities as part of the judicial necessary result of accepted 
and inherent sinfulness. Human nature was not only disabled but guilty, and the 
disabilities were themselves a consequence and aspect of the guilt " ; see review of 
Moberly by Hashdall, in Jour. Theol. Studies, 3 : 19&-211. Lidgett, Spir. Princ of Atone- 
ment, 166-168, criticizes Dr. Dale for neglecting the fatherly purpose of the Atonement 
to serve the moral training of the child — punishment marking ill-desert in order to 
bring this ill-desert to the consciousness of the offender, — and for neglecting also the 
positive assertion in the atonement that the law is holy and Just and good— something 
more than tlie negative expression of sin's ill-desert. See especially Lidgett's chapter 
on the relation of our Lord to the human race, 351-378, in which he grounds the atone- 
ment in the solidarity of mankind, its organic union with the Son of Qod, and Christ's 
Immanence in humanity. 

Bowne, The Atonement, 101 — ^* Something like this work of grace was a moral neces- 
sity with God. It was an awful responsibility that was taken when our human race 
was launched with its fearful possibilities of good and evil. God thereby put himself 
under infinite obligation to care for his human family ; and reflections upon his position 
as Creator and Uuler, instead of removing only make more manifest this obligation. 
So long OS we conceive of Ood as sitting apart in supreme ease and self-satisfaction, he 
is not love at all, but only a reflex of our selfishness and vulgarity. So long as we con- 
ceive him as bestowing upon us out of his infinite fulness but at no real cost to himself, 
he sinks before the moral heroes of the race. There Is ever a higher thought possible, 
until we see Ood taking the world upon his heart, entering into the fellowship of our 
sorrow, and becoming the supreme burdenbearer and leader in all self-sacrifloe. Then 
only are the possibilities of grace and love and moral heroism and condescension filled 
up, 8o that nothing higher remains. And the work of Christ himself, so far as it was 
an historical event, must be viewed, not merely as a piece of history, but also as a man- 
ifestation of that Cross which was hidden in the divine love from the foundation of the 
world, and which is involved in the existence of the human world at ail.'* 

John Caird, Fund. Ideas of Christianity, 2 : 90, 91 — ** Conceive of the ideal of moral 
perfection incarnate in a human personality, and at the same time one who loves lis 
with a love so absolute that he identifies himself with us and makes our good and evil 
his own — bring together these elements in a living, conscious human spirit, and you 
have in it a capacity of shame and anguish, a possibility of bearing the burden of 
human gruilt and wretchedness, which lost and guilty humanity can never bear for 
iw^lf." 



ETHICAL THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. 757 

If Christ had been liom iuto the world by ordinary generation, he too 
would have had depravity, g^ilt, penalty. But he w&s not so born. In the 
womb of the Virgin, the human nature which ho took was pureed from ita 
deprayiiy. But this purging away of depravity did not take away guilt, or 
penalty. There was still left the just exi>o8ure to the penalty of violated 
law. Although Christ's nature was purified, his obligation to suffer yet 
remained. He might have declineil to join himself to himianity, and tlien 
he need not have suffered. He might have sundered his connection with 
the race, and then he need not have suffered. But once bom of the Virgin, 
once possessed of the human nature that was under the curse, he was bound 
to suffer. The whole mass and weight of God*s displeasure against the race 
fell on him, when once he became a member of the race. 

BeoauAe Christ is osscntial humanity, the universal man, the life of the raoc, he is the 
central brain to which and throufph which all idt^as must imas. Ho is tho central heart 
to which and througrh which all iwlns must bo communicated. You cannot telephone 
to your friend across the town without llrst ringin^r up the central office. You cannot 
injure your neigrhbor without flrat Injurin^r Christ. Each one of us can say of him : 
"IgaiMl thM, \hm oolj. kaTe I liimad " ( Pi 51 : 4 ). IV'cause of his central and all-lncluslve human- 
ity, he must bear In his own iM^f^on all the burdens of humanity, and must be "the Lunb 
«f God, that " taketh, and so *' taketh awtj. the sin of the vorld " ( John i : 29 ). Sinims Reeves, the 
ffreat English tenor, said that the puMsion-music was too much for him ; he was found 
completely overcome after singing th(; prophet's words in Lam. 1 : 12 — "Is it nothing to joo, 
all 7« that pan bj ? Behold, and lee if there be an j Borrow like nnto mj sorrow, whioh is brocght npon mo. Vherewith 
Ukmh hath afflicted me in the da j of his fieroe anger." 

Father Damien gave his life in ministry to the Ici)ers' colony of the Hawalan Islands. 
Though free from the disease when he entered, he was at lust himself stricken with the 
leprosy, and then wn)tc : *' I must now stay with my own people." Once a leiier, there 
was no release. When Christ once Joined hlmsc^lf to humanity, all the exposures and 
liabilities of humanity fell upon him. Through himsc>lf personally w^it hout sin, he was 
made sin for us. Christ inhcTltCHl guilt and penalty. Heb. 2 : 14. 15 —"Since then the children are 
■hanrs in flesh and blood, he also himself in like manner partook of the same ; that through death he might bring to naught 
Un ihaX had the power of death, that is, the devil ; and might dellTer all them who through fear of death were all their 
Ufe-time subject to bondage." 

Only God can forgive sin, because only God can feel it in its true heinousness and rate 
it at its true worth. Christ could forgive sin becausi? he adde<l to the divine fi>e]ing 
with regard to sin the anguish of a pure humanity on account of it. Shelley, Julian and 
Maddolo : " Me, whose heart a stranger's t4»ar might wear. As water-<lrop8 the sandy 
fountain-stone ; Me, who am as a ncr\'e o'er which do creep The Else unfelt oppressions 
of the earth.*' 8. W. Culver: ** We cannot l)c saved, as we are taught geometry, by 
lecture and diagram. No pi'rson ever yet 8av(Kl another fn)m drowning by standing 
coolly by and telling hlni the Importance of rising to the surface and the necessity of 
respiration. No, he must plunge into the destructive element, and take upon himself 
the very condition of the drowning man, and !)y the exertion of his own Htrength, by 
the vigor of his own life, save him from the imiHMiding death. When your child is 
encompassed by the flames that consume your dwelling, you will not save him by call- 
ing to him from without. You must make your way through the devouring flame, till 
you come personally into the very condltloiifl of his peril and danger, and, thence 
returning, bear him forth to freedom and safety.'* 

Notice, however, that this gnilt which Christ took ujjon himself by his 
nnion with humanity was : ( 1 ) not tho guilt of jHirsoual sin — such guilt 
as belongs to every adult member of the nice; (2) not oven the guilt of 
inherited depravity — such ppiilt as belongs to infants, and to those who 
have not come to moral consciousness ; but ( 3 ) solely the guilt of Adam's 
sin, which bekmgs, prior to iHjrsoual tninsgression, and apart from inherited 
depravity, to every member of tho race who lias dorivcd his life from Adam. 
This original sin and inherited guilt, but without the depravity that ordina- 



r» 



CHKI5TOUOGT. OK THE DOCTKETK OF KEDEMPnOS. 




•rycai i^nih,' bat tbe iriiih of thai oce 
oi ihe erjCszDoc; trarrtgreBBaoa o€ the 
frcA wikidi all other sis* hmre sproztg 
TieanoQiij bear the pesahj dae to the 



this gmh ia Bc* kia per- 

ia vhjch "all oiniked''— the guilt 

lam, the g;iilt of the root-cm 

—he 

snof alL 



cnctKiooft of tnaoeenoe- ia kxs 
tirjoiu Hfegati^erwlizaofc ritf aJifaepep>aieio< k 

Chrat UM>k to hiiaat?f ti« «aiDe of 
iHuiie. repeniim^ of :t and 
«fmid DOC tM& fa the tmmt iili Cbiist 
■^.«^ rltal. orif>nic sad profouDd 
it utorallj tae ljf«»r of all nwo, before be IxeoiBa 




oo ftoeoont o< it. Bot tldi 
tie oTriTiny him to men far 



the life of triK beileven^ 
JIathieaoo, -ff^ir. Der^eL of s<. Paul. I9C-2U. 3M. 9f«ak> of Christ's aeeular prksKhood. of 
an ffutfir a§ well an an inoer membershxp in the body of Christ. He a§ aacrificial bead of 
the wr/rM m veil m aa^Tiftoal bead of the church. In Paul's lateM ktteis. be deciarea 
<»f Chr1stthaslKit~a*i>nr«faCaaLi9KhL:7tf;fe!BttiCkum'f!!^4.9». There is a grace 
that -m^tffmnl tr^ar al^ua ^tiLBB'TSi::!:.. He>fmfi^xaaiBS~l|k.4:tt. -Tm. 

■■Iknf » u W r^BOi< ' ilTSaLt . 4 . 

B/fjce, Work! and Indiridual, S : t08 — "Our eorrows are identicaDj' God's ovn 
mtrrf/WM. .... I torrov. but the aoiT O w is not ooljr mine. This aune sorrow. Just aa it 

is ff^r me, is God's sofTov The divine fuUiiment can be won ooly through the 

UffTTfjwi fit time. . . . UnJeas GcmI kDows sorrow, be knows not the highest good, which 
ooruufttft in the overor/ming^ of sorrriW.** Godet, in Tbe Atooemenu 331-961 — ^ Jesus 
cond^rmn^ irin as God condemned it. Wben be felt forsaken on the Croas, he per- 
fonxM^ tbiU act by which tbe offender himself condeoms his sin, and bj that condemna- 
ti'in, fK/ far ha it depends on himaelf, makes it to disappear. There is but oneconacience 
in all moral beiofrt. This ech^j in Chri^ of God's judgment against sin was to re-edio 
hi all oth<.'r human ry^^^.-ifoces. This has transformed God*s love of compaasioQ into 
a love of aatiafactiou. Holiness joins sufferinir to sin. But the element of reparation 
In t\0: ilT'im wa.« not in the suffenncr but in tbe submission. The <rfaild who revolta 
a«rajn>d its f>unishmetit has made no reparation at alL We appropriate Christ's work 
wbrm wc \>j faith ourselves condemn sin and accept him.'* 

If it l>e aftked whether this is not simplv a snfTering for his own sin, or 
rather for his own share of the sin of the race, we reply that his own share 
in the sin of the race is not the sole reason why he suffers ; it famishes 
only the subjective reasrfjn and ground for the proper ^ying upon him of 
the sin of alL Christ's union with the race in his incarnation is only the 
outward and visible expression of a prior union with the race which began 
when he created the race. As **in him were all things created," and as 
**in him all things c^jnsist," or hold together (CoL 1 : 16, 17), it follows 
tliat he who is the life of humanity must, though personally pure, be 
involved in responsibility for all human sin, and "it was necessary that the 
Christ should suffer '* ( Acts 17 : 3 ). This suffering was an enduring of the 
reaction of the divine holiness against sin and so was a bearing of penalty 
( Is. 53 : 6 ; GaL 3 : 13 ), but it was also the voluntary execution of a plan 
that antedated creation ( PhLL 2 : 6, 7 ), and Christ's sacrifice in time showed 
wliat liad bwm in the heart of God from eternity ( Heb. 9 : 14 ; Rev. 13 : 8 ). 

Our treatment is IntendcHl to meet the chief modem objection to the atonement. 
On?K« Creed of ChriHt*5n<loiii, 2, : 2"i2, sr^^'aks of " the 8tran^*ly iDCousisteut doctrine that 
Ooil JH Hojiud that lie could not let sin ko unpunished, yet so xinjiigt that he could punish 

it in the [>ersorr of the innocf-nt It is for orthodox dialectics to explain how the 

oivlue Justice can be impugned by imrdoning the guilty, and yet vindicoUd by punish- 



BTHICAL THEOBT OF THE ATONEMENT. 759 

inir the iImoo(^nt '* ( quoted in Lias, Atonement, 18 ). In order to meet this difflculty, the 
following' accounta of Christ's identification with humanity have been friven: 

1. That of Isaac Watts ( see Bib. Sac. 1875 : 4i'l ). This holds that the humanity of 
Cbrist, both in body and soul, pre^j^isted l>eforo the incarnation, and was manifested to 
the patriarchs. We reply that Christ's human nature is declared to be derived from the 
Yirvin. 

a. ThatofR. W.Dale (Atonement, 285-440). Thisholds that Christ is responsible for 
human sin because, as the Upholder and Life of all, be is naturally one with all men, and 
is spiritually one with all believers ( icu 17 : 28 — **!& kin vt lin^ and mon^ and Hat* ov btiag " ; CoL 
l:i7~''iakiB«UtUagieoiifiit''; Johal4:20— •'laminnyPitW.aadjtmmi^andlinyw"^^ If Christ's 
bearing our sins, however, is to be explained by the union of the believer with Christ, 
the effect is made to explain the cause, and Christ could have died only for the elect 
(see a review of Dale, in Brit. Quar. Bev., Apr., 1878 : iStl-SSb), The union of Christ with 
the race by creation— a union which recognizes Christ's purity and man's sin— still 
remains as a most valuable element of truth in the theory of Dr. Dale. 

8. That of Edward Irvinir. Christ has a corrupted nature, an inborn infirmity and 
depravity, which bo gnulually overcomes. But the Scriptures, on the contrary, assert 
his holiness and separutencra from sinners. ( See references, on pa^es 744-747.) 

4. That of John Miller, Thc*olofO% 114-i:» ; also in his chapter: Was dirlst in Adam ? 
In Questions Awakeni*d by the Bible. Christ, as to his human nature, although created 
pure, was yet, as erne of Adam's posterity, conceived of as a sinner in Adam. To him 
attached *' the guilt of the act in which uU men stood together in a federal relation. . . • 
He was decreed to be guilty for the sins of all mankind.'* Although there is a truth 
contained in this statement, it is vitiated by Miller's federaUsm and crcatianism. Arbi- 
trary imputation and l(^glll fiction do not help us h(>re. We need such an actual union 
of Christ with humanity, and such a deri^-Btion of the sulistance of his being, by natural 
generation from Adam, oh will make him not simply the constructive heir, but the 
natural heir, of the guilt of the race. We come, therefore, to what we regard as the 
true view, namely : 

5. That the humanity of Christ was not a new creation, but was derived from Adam, 
through Mary his mother; so that Christ, so far us his humanity wus concerned, was in 
Adam Just as we were, and had the same race-responsibility with ourselves. As Adam's 
descendant, he was responsible for Adam's eiii, like every other mt^mber of the race ; 
the chief difference being, that while we inherit from Adam both guilt and d(>pravity, 
he whom the Holy Spirit purified, iiiheritxMl not the depravity, but only the guilt. Christ 
took to himself , not sin (depravity), but the consequences of sin. In him there was 
abolition of sin, without abolition of obligation to suffcT for sin; while in the believer, 
there is abolition of obllgati(m to sufTcr, without abolition of sin itftelf. 

The Justice of Christ's sufferings has be<*n imiKjrfocily illustnittHl by the obligation of 
the silent partner of a business firm to ptiy debts of the firm which he did not personally 
contract; or by the obligation of the huslmnd to pay the debts of his wife ; or by the 
obligation of a purchasing country to assume the debts of the province which it pur- 
chases ( Wm. Ashmoro). Then; have l)een men who have spent tlie strength of a life- 
time in clearing off the indebte<Uiefts of an insolvent father, long since decease*!. They 
recognized an organic unity of the family, which morally, if not legally, made their 
father's liabilities their own. So, it Is said, Christ recognized the organic unity of the* 
race, and saw that, having become one i){ that sinning races he had involved himself in 
all its llabiliti<»s, even to the suffering of death, the gr<»at penalty of sin. 

The fault of all the analogl<« Just mentioned is that they are purely commercial. A 
transference of pecuniary obli^ition is easier to understand than a transference of 
criminal liability. 1 cannot Justly lyeiir another's iwnalty, unless I wui in some way 
share his guilt. The theory we advocate shows how such a sharing of our guilt on the 
part of Christ was possible. All believers in substitution hold that Christ bore our 
guilt: **My soul looks buck to see The burdens thou didst bear When hanging on the 
accursed tree. And hopes her guilt was there." But we claim that, by virtue of Christ's 
union with humanity, that guilt was not only an imputed, but also un imparted, guilt. 

With Christ's obligati<m to suffer, there were connected two other, though minor, 
results of his assumption of humanity: first, the longing to suffer; and secondly, the 
inevitableness of his suffering. He felt the longing to suffer which pc?rfect love to God 
must feel, in view of the di^nands upon tlw raw, of that holiness of God which he 
love<l more than he loved the nu« its<»lf ; which ixTfect love to man must fi-ol, in view 
of the fact that bearing the penalty of man's sin was the only way to save him. Hence 
we see Christ pressing forward to the cross with such majc&tic determination that the 



760 CHRISTOLOGY, OR THE DOCTRINE OF REDEMPTION. 

disciples were amazed and afraid ( lUrk 10 : 32 ). Hence we hear him sajring : " Witk imn hait 
I desired to eat this passoTer " ( Lake 23 : 15 ) ; "I hare a baption to be baptiied with ; and how am I straitaned till i^ 
be accomplished 1 " ( Lake 12 : 50 ). 

Here is the truth in Campbell's theory of the atonement. Christ is the grreat Penitent 
before God, makinjir confession of the sin of the race, which others of that race could 
neither see nor feeL But the view we present is a larger and completer one than 
that of Campbell, in that It makes this confession and reparation obligatory upon 
Christ, as Campbell's view does not, and recognizes the penal nature of Christ's suffer- 
ings, which Campbell's view denies. Lias, Atonement, 79—" Tlie head of a clan, himself 
intensely loyal to his king, finds that his clan have been involved in rebellion. The more 
intense and perteot his loyalty, the more thorough his nobleness of heart and affection 
for his people, the more inexcusable and flagrant the rebellion of those for whom he 
pleads,— the more acute would be his agony, as their representative and head. Nothing 
would be more true to human nature, in the best sense of those words, than that the 
conflict between loyalty to his king and affection for his vassals should Induce him to 
offer his life for theirs, to ask that the punishment they deserved should be Inflicted 
on him." 

The second minor consequence of Christ's assumption of humanity was, that, being 
such as ho was, he could not help suffering ; in other words, the obligatory and the 
desired were also the inevitable. Since he was a being of perfect purity, contact with 
the sin of the race, of which he was a member, necessarily involved an actual suffering, 
of an in tenser kind than we can conceive. Sin is self-isolating, but love and righteous- 
ness have in them the instinct of human unity. In Christ all the nerves and sensibilities 
of humanity met. He was the only healthy member of the race. When life returns to 
a frozen Umb, there is pain. So Christ, as the only sensitive member of a benumbed 
and stupefied humanity, felt all the pangs of shame and suffering which rightfully 
belonged to sinners ; but which they could not feel, slmpl j' because of the depth of their 
depraWty. Because Christ was pure, yet had united himself to a sinful and guilty race, 
therefore "it mast needs be that Christ shoold safer" ( A. Y.) or, " it behoored the Christ to safer " ( Rev. 
Vers., lets 17 : 3 ); see also John 3 : 14—" so most the Son of man be lifted ap " — *^ The Incarnation, 
under the actual circumstances of humanity, carried with it the necessity of the 
Passion " ( Wcstcott, in Bib. Com., in loco ). 

Compare John Woolman's JouruaU 4, 5 — ** O Lord, my God, the amazing horrors of 
darkness were gathered about me, and covered me all over, and I saw no way to go 
forth ; I felt the depth and extent of the misery of my follow creatures, separat<?d 
from the divine harmony, and it was greater than I could bear, and I was crushed down 
under it ; I lifted up my head, I stretched out my arm, but there was none to help me ; 
I looked round about, and was amazed. In the depths of misery, I remembered that 
thou art omnipotent and that I had called thee Father." He had vision of a ** dull, 
gloomy mass," darkening half the heavens, and he was told that it was ^' human beings, 
in as great misery as they could be and live ; and he was mixed with them, and hence- 
forth he might not consider himself a distinct and separate being." 

This suffering in and with the sins of men, which Dr. Bushuell emphasized so strongly, 
though it Is not, as he thought, the principal element, is notwithstanding an indispen- 
sable element in the atonement of Christ. Suffering In and with the sinner is one way, 
though not the only way, in which Christ is enabled to bear the wrath of God which 
constitutes the real penalty of sin. 

Exposition of 2 Cor. 5 : 21.— It remains for us to adduce the Scriptural proof of 
this natural assumption of human guilt by Christ. We find it in 2 Cor. 5 : 21 — " Him who knew 
no sin he made to be sin on oar behalf ; that we might become the righteoasness of God in Um." ** Righteoasness " here 
cannot mean subjective purity, for then "made to be sin" would mean that God made 
Christ to be subjectively depraved. As Christ was not made unholUf the meaning 
cannot be that we are made holu persons in him. Meyer calls attention to this parallel 
between "righteoasness" and "sin". — "That we might become the rightwasness of God in him "» that wo 
might become justified persons. Correspondingly, " made to be sin on oar behalf" must = made 
to be a condemned pers^m. " Him who knew no sin "«=. Christ had no experience of sin — this 
was the necessary postulate of his work of atonement. "Made sin for as." therefore, is the 
abstract for the concrete, and — made a sinner. In the sense that the penalty of sin fell 
upon him. So Meyer, for substance. 

We must, however, regard this interpretation of Meyer's as coming short of the full 
meaning of the apostle. As Justification is not simply remission of acttud punishment, 
but Is also deliverance from the obligcUion to suffer punishment,— in other words, as 
•« righteoasness" in the text — persons delivered from the ffuUt as well as from the penaity 



ETHICAL THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. 761 

of iln,— to the contrasted term "lia," In the text,— a person nut only acttuiHy punished, 
but also under itbliffation to suffer punishment ;— in oIIkt wonlH, Christ Is "madfl tin." not 
only in the siniso of being put under pcnaltyt but aJso in the sense of lieiuK put under 
guOL ( Cf, Symlnirton, Atonement, 17.) 

In a note to the hist edition of M(>yer, this is substantially granted. ** It is to be 
noted," he says, ** that atiapriay^ like Karmpa in Gd. 3 : 13, neccKsarily includes in itSL'lf the 
notion of guilt." Meyer adds, however : ** The guilt of whii h Christ ap|ieant as l)earer 
was not his own (mii ytovra atiapriav); heuce the guilt of m«m was transferrfd to him ; 
consequently the Justifloation of men Ib imputative.*' Here the Implication that the 
guilt which Christ bears is his simply by imputation seems to us cimtrary to the analogy 
of faith. As Adam's sin is ours only because; wo are actually one with Adam, and as 
Christy rlghtoousnew is imputed to us only as we are actually united to Christy so our 
Bins are imputed to Christ only as Christ is actually one with the race. He was " made lin " 
by being made one with the sinners ; he took our guilt by taking our nature. He who 
"kaiw no di " came to be " lin for oi " by being born of a sinful stock ; by inheritance the 
common guilt of the race became his. Guilt was not simply imputed to Christ ; it was 
imparted also. 

This exposition may be made more clear by putting the two contrasted thoughts in 
parallel colunms, as follows : 



Made righteousness in him— 
righteous persons ; 
justified persons ; 
freed from guilt, or obligation to 

suffer; 
by spiritual union with Christ. 



Made sin for us— 

a sinful person ; 

actmdemned person; 

put under guilt, or obligation to 

suffer; 
by natural union with the race. 



For a good exposition of S Cor. 5:21, GaL 3: 13, and Rob. 3: 25^26, see Deimey, Studies in 
Theology, 109-1:^. 

The Atonement, then, on the part of God, has ita ground ( 1 ) in the 
holiness of God, which must visit sin with condemnation, even though this 
condemnation brings death to his Bon ; and ( 2 ) in the love of God, which 
itself provides the sacrifice, by suifering in and with his Bon for the sins of 
men, but through that suffering opening a way and means of salvation. 

The Atonement, on the part of man, is accomplished through ( 1 ) the 
solidarity of the race ; of which ( 2 ) Christ is the life, and so its rex)re- 
Bentative and surety; (3) justly yet voluntarily bearing its guilt and 
shame and condemnation as his own. 

Melanchthon : *' Christ was made sin for us, not only in respect to punishment, but 
primarily by being chargeable with guilt also ( cuIihjc ct rc4itiM ) " — quoted by Thoma- 
sius, Christi Person und Werk, 3 : 96, 103, 10(}, 107 ; aL$o 1 : a07, 314 aq. Thomusius says 
that '^Christ bore the guilt of the race by imputation; but as in the case of the 
imputation of Adam's sin to us, imputation of our sins to Christ presupposes a real 
relationship. Christ appropriated our sin. He sank hims<>lf into our guilt." Dorrier, 
Glaubenslehrc, 2:442 ( Syst. Doct., 8:350, 351), agrees with Thomasius, that ''Christ 
entered into our natural mortality, which for us is a penal condition, and into the 
state of colhjctlve guilt, so far as it is an evil, a burden to be borne ; not that ho had 
personal guilt, but rather that he entered into (^ur guilt-laden common life, not as a 
stranger, but as one actually belonging to it — put under its law, according to the will 
of the Father and of his own love." 

When, and how, did Christ take this guilt and this penalty upon him ? With regard 
to penalty, we have no difficulty in answering that, as his whole life of suffering was 
propitiatory, so penalty rested upon him from the very beginning of his life. This 
penalty was inherited, and wus the consequence of Christ^s taking human nature ( fiaL 
4:^5—" boni of a woman, bom noder the law " ). But penalty and guilt are correlates ; if Christ 
inherited penalty, it must have been because he inherited guilt. This subjection to 
the common guilt of the race was intimated in Jesus* circumcision (Lake 2: 21); in his 
ritual purification ( Luke 2 : 22 — •• their pnrifiottion " — i. c, the purification of Mary and the 
oabe; seeLnnge, Life of Christ; Commentaries of Alford, Welwter and Wilkinson; 
Ind An. Par. Bible); in his legal redemption (Luke 2: 23, 24; cf, Xx. 13:2; 13); and in his 
teptism (lUt 3:i5~*'tluuitbeeometh u to fUflll all righteomnen " ). The baptized person went 



762 CHRISTOLOQY, OB THE DOCTBINE OF BEDEMFTION. 

flown into the water, as one laden with sin and guau in order that this sin and guHi 
mi^rht be buried forever, and that he might rise from the typical grave to a new and 
holy life. ( Ebrard : ** Baptism — death." ) So Christ's submission to John's baptism of 
repentence was not only a consecration to death, but also a recognition and confes- 
sion of his implication in that eruilt of the race for which death was the appointed and 
inevitable penalty ( cf. lUt 10 : 38 ; Lake 12: 50 ; Ibi 26 : 39 ) ; and, as his baptism was a pre- 
flgruration of his death, we may learn from his baptism somethinflr with regard to the 
meaning of his death. See further, under The Symbolism of Baptism. 

As one who had had guilt, Christ was "Jiutilkd in the spirit "(1 Tim. 8: 16); and this justlfica^ 
tlon appears to have taken place after he " was ouuiifflsted in tlw Hesh " ( 1 lim. 8 : 16 ), and when 
" he wta raised for onr jnstillcation " (Rom. 4 : 25 ). Compare Rom. 1 :4 — "decUired to be the Son of God with 
power, aoeording to the spirit of holiness, bj the resorreotioa from the dead " ; 6: 7-10 — "he that hath died is jostiAed 
from tin. But if we died with Christi we belieTe that we shall also Uto with him ; knowing that Christ being raised 
from the dead dieth no more ; death no more hath dominion over him. For the death that he died, he died onto sin 
ones : bnt the life that he liveth, hs lireth onto God " — here all Christians are conceived of as ideally 
Justified in the Justiflcation of Christ, when Christ died for our sins and rose again. 
8:3—" God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinfal flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh" — here 
Meyer says : " The sending does not prcocdc the condemnation ; but the condemnation 
is effected in and with the sending." John 16 : 10 — " of righteonsnesst beeanse I go to the Father " ; 19 : 80 
~ " It is flnished." On 1 Tim. 3 : 16, see the Commentary of Beugel. 

If it be asked whether Jesus, then, before his death, was an unjustified person, we 
answer that, while iiersonally pure and well-pleasing to God (Mat. 3 : 17 ), he himself was 
conscious of a race-responsibility and a race-guilt which must be atoned for (John 12: 27 
— "How is mj sool tronbled ; and what shall I say 7 Father, ssto me from this hoar. Bnt for this oanse came I onto 
this hour"); and that guilty human nature in him endured at the last the separation 
from Ood which constitutes the essence of death, sin's penalty ( lUt. 27 : 46 — " II j God, mj 
God, whj hast thou forsaken me?'* ). We must remember that, as even the believer must "be 
Jndged according to men in the flesh " ( 1 Pet 4: 6 ), that is, must suffer the death which to unbe- 
lievers is the penalty of sin, although he "live according to God in the Spirit," so Christ, in order 
that we might be delivered from both guilt and penalty, was " pnt to death in the flesh, bnt 
made alive in the spirit" (3:18); — in other words, as Christ was man, the penalty due to 
human guilt belonged to him to bear; but, as he was Ood, he could exhaust that pen- 
alty, and could be a proper substitute for others. 

If it be asked whether he, who from the moment of the conception "sanotifled himself" 
(John 17: 19), did not from that moment also justify himself, we reply that although, 
through the retroactive efficacy of his atonement and upon the ground of it, human 
nature in him was purged of its depravity from the moment that he took that nature ; 
and although, upon the ground of that atonement, believers before his advent were 
both sanctified and justified ; yet his own justification could not have proceeded upon 
the ground of his atonement, and also his atonement have proceeded upon the ground 
of his justification. This would be a vicious circle ; somewhere we must have a begin- 
ning. That beginning was in the cross, where guilt was first purged ( Heb. 1:3 — " when he 
had made pnriflcatioa of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majestj on high " ; Mat. 27 : 42 — "He saTed others; 
himself he cannot saye " ; cf. ReT. 13 : 8 — " the Lamb that bath been slain from the foundation of the world " ). 

If it be said that guilt and depravity are practically inseparable, and that, if Christ 
had guilt, he must have had depravity also, we reply that in civil law we distinguish 
between them, — the conversion of a murderer would not remove his obligation to 
suffer upon the gallows ; and we reply further, that in Justiflcation we distinguish 
between them,— depravity still remaining, though guilt is removed. So we may say 
that CJhrist takes guilt without depravity, in order that we may have depravity with- 
out guilt. See page 645 ; also Bohl, Incarnation des gCttlichen Wortes ; Pope, Higher 
Catechism, 118; A. H. Strong, on the Necefflity of the Atonement, in Philosophy and 
Religion, 213-219. Per contra, see Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2 : 59 note, 82. 

Christ therefore, as ineaxnate, rather revealed the atonement than made 
it. The historical work of atonement was finished upon the Cross, but 
that historical work only revealed to men the atonement made both before 
and since by the extra-mnndane Logos. The eternal Love of God suffer- 
ing the necessary reaction of his own Holiness against the sin of his 
creatures and with a view to their salvation — this is the essence of the 
Atonement. 



ETHICAL THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. 763 



Nuh, BthioB and Re^-elation, 2SS, S33— *' Christ, u Ood's atonement, is the revelation 
and discovery of the fact that sacrifloe is as deep in God as bis Iwing. Ho is a holy 
Creator. ... He must take upon himself the shame and pain of sin.'* Tho earthly 
tabemade and its sacrifioes were only the shadow of those in the heavens, and Muses 
was bidden to make the earthly after the pattern which he saw in the mount. So the 
historloal atonement was but the shadowinir forth to dull and finite minds of an 
infinite demand of the divine holiness and an infinite satisfaction rendered by the 
divine love. Oodet, S. 8. Times, Oct. 18, 18H6— '' Christ so identified himself with the 
race he oame to sa>*o, by sharing its life or its very blood, that when the race itself was 
redeemed from the curse of sin, his resurrection followed as tho first fruits of that 
redemption*' ; Ion. 4:25— "dillTeni up for ov tuiyiwii niaid for onr jutiflcation." 

Simon, Bodemption of Man, 333 — **If the Lokos is generally the Mediator of the 
divine immanence in CreatUm, esi»eoially in man ; if men are differentiations of the 
effluent divine enerfry ; and if the Loiroe is tho immanent controlling principle of all 
differentiation, U e., the principle of all form — must not tho self-perversion of these 
human differentiations necessarily react on him who is their constitutive principle? 
839 — Kemember that men have not first to engraft themselves into Christ, the li>ing 
whole. . . . They subsist naturally in him, and they have to seiHirato themselves, cut 
themselves off from him, if they are to be separate. This is the mistake made in the 
'Life in Christ * theory. Men are treated as In some sense out of Christ, and as having 
to get into connection with Christ. ... It is not that we have to crciite tho relation, — 
wo have simply to ae(x.>pt, to recognixc, to ratify It. liejoctlng Christ is not so much 
refusal to Itfcnmv one with Christ, as it is refusal to remain one with him, refusal to 
let him be our life.*' 

A. H. Strong, Christ in Creation, 33, 1?2— ** When God breathed into man's nostrils 
tho breath of life, ho commimlcated freedom, and niiule possible the cn<ature'8 self- 
ohosen alienation from himself, the giver of that life. While man could never break 
the natural b<md which united him to God, he oould breiik the spiritual bond, and 
oould intn>duee even into the life of Gn<l a principle of discord and evil. Tie a cord 
tightly about your finger; you partially isolate the linger, diminish its nutrition, bring 
about atn)]>hy and disease. Yet the life of the whole system rouses itself to put away 
the evil, to untie the cord, to free the diseased and suffering mcml)er. The illustration 
Is far from adequate ; but it helps at a single point. There htis lK?en given to ouch 
intelligent and moral agent tho power, spiritually, to isolate hinif»elf from God. while 
yet he is naturally Joined to G(h1, and is wholly (le|>rndent upon («od for the removal 
of the sin which has so se]jarate<l him from his Maker. Sin is the act of the creature, 
but salvation Is the act of the Creator. 

^If you could imagine a finger endowtkl with free will and trying to sunder its con- 
nection with the body by tying a string around itself, you would have a picture of 
man trying to sunder his connection with Christ. What is the result of such an 
attempt? Why, pain, decoy; possible, nay, incipient death, to the finger. By what 
law ? By the law of the organism, which is so constitutcHl as to maintain itself against 
its own dlsru]>tion by the revolt of tho members. The pain and death of the finger is 
the reaction of tho whole against the treason of the part. The finger suffers pain. 
But ore there no results of pain to the body ? Does not tlie body tvel pain also ? How 
plain it is that no such pain can be confined to the single part I The heart feels, aye, 
the whole organism feels, because all the parts are members one of another. It not only 
suffers, but that suffering tends to remedy tho evil and to remove its cause. The body 
summons its forces, pours now tides of life into the dying memlier, strives to rid the 
finger of the ligature that binds it. So through all the course of history, Christ, the 
natural life of tho race, has been afl9icted In tho aftlietion of humanity and has suffered 
for human sin. This suffering has been an atoning suffering, since it has been due to 
righteousness. If God had not been holy, if God had not made oil nature express the 
holiness of his being, if God had not made pain and loss the necessary eonsiequences 
of sin, then Christ would not have suffenKl. But since these things an* sin's penalty 
and Christ is the life of tho sinful race, it must needs be that Christ should sufft.'r. 
There is nothing arbitrary in laying upon him the iniquities of us all. Original grace, 
like original sin, is only the ethiciil interpretation of biological facts." Set* also Ames, 
on Biological Aspects of the Atonement, in Methodist Review, Nov. 1905 : 94^-953. 

In favor of tho Substitutiouary or Ethical view of the atonement we may 
urge the f olloidng considerationB : 



764 CHBISTOLOOYy OB THE DOCTRIKB OF BEDEMPTIOV. 

(a) It rests npon correct philosophicsl principles with regard to the 
nature of will, law, sin, penalty, righteoosnees. 

This theorj holds that there are permanMit states, as weQ as tfrnnafent acts, of the 
wfll : and that the will is not simply the faculty of volitions, but also the fimdaniental 
determination of the bein^ to an ultimate end. It regards law as haTing ita basia, not 
in arbitrary will or in gt>vemmental expediency, but rather in the nature of God, and 
as being a necessary transcript of God's holiness. It considen sin to consist not simply 
in acta, but in permanent evil states of the affections and wilL It makes the object of 
penalty to be, not the reformation of the offender, or the prevention of evil doin^r* but 
the vindication of justice, outraged by violation of law. It teai*he8 that rigfateousDesi 
is not benevolence or a form of benevolence, but a distinct and separate attribute of 
the divine nature which demands that sin should be visited with punishment, apart 
from any consideration of the useful results that will flow therefrom. 

( 6 ) It combines in itself all the valnable elements in the theories before 
mentioned, while it avoids their inconsistencies, by showing the deeper 
principle npon which each of these elements is based. 

The Ethical theory admits the indispensablenesB of Christ's example, advocated by 
the Sodnian theory ; the moral influence of his suffering, urged by the BushndUan 
theory ; the securing of the safety of government, insisted on by the Grotian theory; 
the participation of the believer in Christ's new humanity, taught by the Irvlngian 
theory ; the satisfaction to God's majesty for the elect, made so inuch of by the Anad- 
mic theory. But the Ethical theory claims that all these other theories require, as a 
presupposition for their effective working, that ethical satisfaction to the holiness of 
God which is rendered in guilty human nature by the Son of God who took that nature 
to redeem it. 

(c) It most folly meets the requirements of Scripture, by holding that 
the neoessiiy of the atonement is absolute, since it rests upon the demands 
of immanent holiness, the fundamental attribute of God. 



Adfl7:S — "itbthooTfitttdrisltonlir.aBdterisi agiii frn tt« ted " — lit. : "UvMSMMuyftrttt 
Ckrifktonlir"; LaktMcZe—^BakoorsditBottttCkriit to nfw tk«n tkiigi, and te •Bta-i]ltokitste77** — 
lit. : "Wu it Ml BiiiMiry tkal tk* Gkrist ik«ild safw tkm tkings?" It is not enough to say that 
Christ must suffer in order that the prophecies might bo fulfilled. Why was it propb- 
enied that he should suffer? Why did God purpose that he should suffer ? The ulti- 
mate necessity is a necessity in the nature of God. 

Plato, Kepublic, 2 : 961 —^ The righteous man who is thought to be unrighteous will 
be scourged, racked, bound ; will have his evos put out ; and finally, having endured 
all sorts of evil, will be impaled." This means that, as human society is at preeent 
constituted, even a righteous person must suffer for the sins of the world. *^ Mors 
mortis Morti mortem nisi morte dedisset, ^tcnue vitee Janua clausa f oret *' — ^ Had 
not the Death-of-death to Death his death-blow given. Forever closed were the gate, 
the gate of life and heaven.*' 

(d) It shows most satisfactorily how the demands of holiness are met ; 
namely, by the propitiatory ofTering of one who is personally pure, but 
who by union with the human race has inherited its guilt and penalty. 

** Quo non ascendam f "— ** Whither shall I not rise ? " exclaimed the greatest minister 
of modem kings, in a moment of intoxication. ** Whither shall I not stoop ? " says the 
Lord JosuB. King Humbert, during the scourge of cholera in Italy: ** In CasteUam- 
mure they make merry ; in Naples they die : I go to Naples." 

Wrightnour : ** The illustration of Powhatan raising his club to slay John Smith, 
while Pocahontas flings herself between the uplifted club and the victim, is not a good 
one. God is not an angry being, bound to strike something, no matter what. If Pow- 
hatan could have taken the blow himself, out of a desire to spare the >'ictim, it would 
bo better. The Father and the Son are one. Bronson Alcott, in his school at Concord, 
when punishment was necessary, sometimes placed the rod in the hand of the offender 
and bade him strike his ( Alcott's ) hand, rather than that the law of the school should 
be broken without punishment following. The result was that very few rules were 



STHICAL THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. 765 

rokm. So Ood in Christ bore the sliis of the world, and cndurvd the penalty for 
an'8 violation of hid law." 

( 6 ) It famishes the only proper explanation of the sacrificial language 
of the New Testament, and of the saorificial ritos of the Old, considered sb 
pcophetio of Christ's atoning work. 

Foster, Christian Life and Tbooloio'« SOT-JH 1 — ** The imposition of hands on the head 
of the vlotlm is entirely unexplained, t*xci>pt In the account of the great day of Atono- . 
ment, when by the 8amo gt-Hture and by distinct confession the sins of the people wore 
'|itap0atk«kM4of thfgoat' (Ut. 16:21 ) to be borne away into the wilderness. The blood 
was sacred and was to be ]>oured out liefore tho Lord, evidently in place of the forfeited 
lifSe of the sinner which should have boi'n rendenM up." Watts, Now Apologetics, 209 
—** *Tk» Lord vill prorids' was the truth taught when Abraham found a ram provided bj 
God whii'<b he 'offtfed ap u a buret offerinf in tli* itcad of kii mb * ( Qta. 22 : 13» 14). As the ram was 
not Abraham's ram, the sucritlce of it could not teach that all Abraham had belonged 
to God, and should, with entire faith in his goodness, be devoted to him ; but it did 
teach that 'apart fnm ihadding of blood tbm ia no ramiMioii' (lab. 9:22)." 2ChnnL29:27— ''whMitha 
bmt iffviBg began, tka loiig of Jeborab bagaa also." 

(/) It alone gives proi>er place to the death of Christ as the central 
feature of lib work, — set forth in the ordinances, and of chief power in 
COiristian experience. 

Martin Luther, when he had realized the truth of the Atonement, was found sobbing 
before a crucifix and moaning : *' VUr mich ! f Ur mich I '* — ** For me I for me ! " 
Etisha Kane, the Arctic explorer, while seurrhing for signs of Sir John Franklin and 
his party, sent out eight or ten men to explore tlio surrounding region. After several 
da>'s three returned, almost crazed with the cold— thermometer fifty degrees below 
lero— and reported that the other men were dying miles away. Dr. Kane organized 
a company of ten, and though suffering himself with an old heart-trouble, led them to 
the rescue. Three times he falnti.Hl during the eighteen hours of marching and suffer- 
ing; but he fr)uii<l the men. ** We knew you would come I we knew you would come, 
brother I " whlsfx^red one of thorn, hardly able to speak. Why was he sure Dr. Kane 
would come ? liecauHe he knew the stuff Dr. Kane was made of, and knew that he 
would risk his lif(> for any one of them. It is a parable of Clirist's relation to our sal- 
vation. He is our elder brotlier, bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh, and he not 
only risks death, but he endures death, in order to save us. 

(^ ) It gives ns the only means of understanding the sufiferings of Christ 
in the garden and on the cross, or of reconciling them with the divine 
jnstice. 

Krelbig, Versjjhnungslehre : " Man has a guilt that demands the punitive sufferings 
of a mediator. Christ shows a suffering that cannot be Justified except by reference to 
some other guilt than his own. Combine these two facts, and you have the problem 
of the atonement solved.'* J. G. Whlttier : ** Through all the depths of sin and loss 
Drops the plummet of the Cross ; Never yet abysp was found Deeper than the Cross 
oould sound." Alcestls purchased life for Admetus her husband by dying in his stead ; 
Marcus Curtius saved Rome by leaping into the yawning chasm ; the Russian servant 
threw himself to the wolves to rescue his master. Bcrdoe, Robert Browning, 47 — " To 
know God as the theist knows him may suffice for pure spirits, for those who have 
never siimed, suffered, nor felt the need of a Savior ; but for fallen and sinful men the 
Christ of Christianity is an imiKsrative necessity : and those who have never surrend- 
ered themselves to him have never known what it is to experience the rest he gives to 
the heavy-laden soul." 

{h) As no other theory docs, this view satisfies the ethical demand of 
human nature ; pacifies the convicted conscience ; assures the sinner that 
he may find instant salvation in Christ ; and so makes possible a new life 
of holiness, while at the same time it furnishes the highest incentLves to 
soohalife. 



766 CHRISTOLOOT, OK THE DOCTRIKS OF RKDSMFTIOK. 

Sbedd: **The offended pMty Cl ) pennite a lattitntfaip ; (g) prorld CT a gubititiite ; 
(3 ) substitutes himself." Geors^ Eliot : *^ Jostioe is like the kingdom of God ; it ia 
notwithoat U8,a8afact; itis'withinuft.'Maffreatjieaminr.'* But it is both without 
and within, and the inward is only tlie reflection of the outward; the aahjeodye 
demands of cooscienoe only reflect the objecttre demands of hoUneas. 

And yet, while this view of the atonement exalts the holiness of God, tt suipansa 
every other Tiew in its moving exhibition of God's lore — a lore that is not satisfied 
with sufff;rinir in and with the sinner, or with making that s ulTe ring a demonstration 
. of God's regard for law ; but a love that sinks itself into the sinner's guilt and beais 
his penalty, — oomes down so low as to make itself one with him in all but his deprav- 
ity — makes every sacrifloe bat the sacrifice of God's holiness — a sacrifice which God 
could not make, without ceasing to be God ; see 1 Mi 4 : li~ *Ia«a it !§?% ait tet vt kvtd 
6ai bat tet kt Wrad i^asdaitkiiSsatobttk* ^wfttatim hr mr mmT 

The soldier who had bera thought reprobate was moved to oom|dete reform wheo 
he was once forgiven. William Huntington, in his Autobiography, says that one of 
his sharpest sensations of pain, after he had been quickened by divine grace, was that 
he felt such pity fur God. Never was man abused as God has been. Iml 2:4 — "tkc g«i- 
SMflfMUiArtktkMUnycatnn": 12: 1 - "tkaawcMcf M" lead you " u foamx jmr hdm ^ briac 
«aii»";2C«r.S:lil5 — "tka;«TiifCkzia8Mln:Bttkis; bMMM vt tkisj«i««. t^ «• tiid fcr all, 1kw»- 
fr»tI14iad;aa4k«iiW(ar«Il,t^th«7tetliTt AmU m li^w Ixt* uli tkoMehw* tat OM kin vk» fw tkar 
«k« 4i«i aai nm ■fais." The effect of Christ's atonement on Christian character and life 
may be illustrated from the proclamation of Garabaldi : *- He that loves Italy, let him 
follow me I I promise him hardship, I promise him suffering, I promiae him death. 
But be that loves Italy, let him follow me I ** 

D. ObjectionB to the Ethical Theory of the Atonement 

On the general subject of these objections, Phillppi, Glaubenslehre, it, 2:lfiS-]fl(l, 
remarks : ( 1 ) that it rests with God alone to say whether he will pardon sin, and in 
what way be will pardon it ; ( 3 ) that human instincts are a very unsafe standard by 
which to judge the procedure of the Governor of the universe ; and (3 ) that one plain 
declaniti<)n of Grod, with regard to the plan of salvation, proves the fallacy and «rror 
of all reasonings against it. We must correct our watches and clocks by astronomlo 
standards. 

( a ) That a Gk>d who does not pardon sin without atonement most lack 
either omnipotence or love. — We answer, on the one hand, that Gk>d*s 
omniix)teDce is the revelation of his nature, and not a matter of arbitrary 
will ; and, on the other hand, that Gk)d*s love is ever exercised consistently 
with his fundamental attribute of holiness, so that while holiness demands 
the sacrifice, love provides it. Mercy is shown, not by trampling upon 
the claims of justice, but by vicariously satisfying them. 

Because man does not need to avenge personal wrongs, it does not follow that God 
must not. In fact, such avenging is forbidden to us upon the grround that it belongs to 
God ; Kim. 12 : 19 — " iTen^ not joonelTea, bdoTed, but givt pUM uto vntk : fcr it is vritttn, TasgwaN 
beloofeth unto me ; I vill reeompenae, taatk the Lard." But there are limits even to our po^tng over 
of offences. Even the father must sometimes chastise ; and although this chastisement 
Is not properly punishment, it becomes punishment, when the father becomes a teac^ier 
or u governor. Then, other than personal interests come in. ** Because a father can 
forgive without atonement, it does not follow that the state can do the same** ( Shedd >, 
But God is more than Father, more than Teacher, more than Governor. In him, person 
and right are identical. For him to let sin go unpunished is to approve of It; which is 
the same as a denial of holiness. 

Whatever pardon is granted, then, must be pardon through punishment. M^re 
repentance never expiates crime, even under civil government. The truly penitent 
man never feels that his repentance constitutes a ground of acceptance; the more he 
repents, the more he recognizes his need of reparation and expiation. Hence God 
meets the demand of man's conscience, as well as of his own holiness, when be provides 
a substituted punishment. God shows his love by meeting the demands of holiness, 
and by meeting them with the sacrifice of himself. See Mozley on Pedestination, 390. 

The publican prays, not that God may be merciful without sacrifice, but : "God be pro- 
pitiated toward me, tke aiuMr 1" ( lake 18:13) ; in other words, he asks for mercy only through 



OBJECTIONS TO TUE ETHICAL THEORY. 7G7 

and upon the irround of, mciiflcc. We cannot atone to othcra for the wronff we have 
done them, nor van we evi>n atone to tnir own muuIh. A third imrty, and ai; Infinite 
beinr, murit make atouenicnt, aK wo ctinnot. It ia only upon thu irround that Ood 
hlmaelf has made provision fur aatisfyliiir the chihns of Justice, that we are bidden to 
forgive others. Should Othi>ilo thfu for9h*e lacr^i? Yes, if la^o repeuts; Liikfl7:S-' 
*'Iftkjkrotk«riiB,nbiik«Uai; ftBdifktnpcnt, fon^r* him.** But if he does not roiwnt? Yes, so 
flur as Othello's own disposition is conei'mod. He niiiAt not hate Ibko, but must wish 
him well; Ukt6:27— "Lort joveMBiM; do good to tbcm that hato joa, biMt tktm that eone 70a. pn^ frr 
tkiB tkil dMpilefldlj ue 70a." But ho etmrnit rt^vive lairo to his fellowship till he repents. 
On the duty and ground of f orgivinff one another, sec* Martineau, Scat of Authority, 
818, 614 ; Straffen, Hulaean Lectures on the Propitiation for Sin. 

(6) That satisfaotion and forgiveness are mntually exclnsiye. — We 
answer that, since it ia not a third party, but the Judge himself, who makes 
satisfaotion to his own violated holiness, forgiveness is still optional, and 
may be offered upon terms agreeable to himself. Christ's sacritice is not 
a pecuniary, but a penal, satisfaction. The objection is valid against the 
merely oommeroial view of the atonement, not against the ethical view of it 

ForglvcneaB is somethliiK beyond the mere taking away of penalty. When a man 
bears the penalty of bis crime, has the coniinuiiity no right to be indignant with him? 
There is a distinction between p<K!uuiary and penal satisfaction. Pecuniary satisfao- 
tion has respect only to the thing due ; penal satisfaction has respect also to the person 
of the offender. If pardon is a matter of Justice in God*s government, it is so only as 
respects Christ. To the recipient it is only mercy. " Faithftal and righteoos to fin^To u oariiu " 
( i Joka i : 9 ) — faithful to his promise, and riglittnius to Christ. Neither the atonement* 
nor the promise^ gives the offender any ])erHonal claim. 

Philemon must forgive Oncsimus the i>ecuniary dehU when Paul pays it; not so 
with the personal injury Onesimus lias done to Philemon ; there is no forgiveness of 
this, until Onesimus repents and asks pardon. An amnesty may be offered to all, but 
upon conditions. Instance Amos Lawrence's offering to the forger the forged paper 
he had bought up, upon condition tliat he would confess himself bankrupt, and put all 
his affairs into the hands of his benefactor. So the fact that Cluist has paid oiur debts 
does not preclude his offering to us the benefit of what he has done, upon condition of 
our repentance and faith. The equivalent is not furnished by man, but by (rod. God 
may therefore offer the results of it upon his own terms. Bid then the entire race 
fairly pay its penalty when one suffert>d. Just as all incurred the penalty when one 
sinned? Yes, — all who receive their life from each — Adam on the one hand, and 
Christ on the other. See under Union with Christ— its Conseiiucnocs; see also Shedd, 
Discourses and Essays, 'JOo note, 321, and Dogm. Theol, 2:383-380 ; Donier, Glauben- 
slehre, S : 614-615 ( Syst Doct., 4 : 82, 83 ). Venfiu Current Discussions in TImm ^logy, 5 : 281. 

Hovey calls Christ^s relation to human sin a vioe-pc>nal one. Just as vieci-regal posi- 
tion carries with it all the responsibility, care, and anxiety of regal authority, so does a 
viee-penal relati<.>n to sin carry with it all the suffering and loss of the original punish- 
ment, llie pei'son on whom it falls Is different^, but his punishment Is the same, at 
least in iM^nol value. As vice-regnl authority may be superseded by regal, so vice- 
penal suffering, if despised, muy be suiK^rstnlod by the original iwnalty. Is there a 
waste of viee-penal suffering when any are lost for whom it was endured ? On the 
same principle we might object to any suffering on the part of Christ for those who 
refuse to bo saved by him. Such suffering may benefit others, if not those for whom 
it was in the first instance endured. 

If compensation is made, it is said, there is nothing to forgive; if forgiveness is 
granted, no compensation can be required. This reminds us of Narvaez, who saw no 
reason for forgiving his enemies until he had shot them all. When the offended party 
furnishes the compensation, he can offer its benefits upon his own terms. Dr. Pente- 
cost : ** A prisoner in Scotland was brought before the Judge. As the culprit entered 
the box, he looked into the face of the Judge to see if he could discover mercy there. 
The Judge and the prisoner exchanged glances, and then th<.'re came a mutual recog- 
nition. The prisoner said to himself : * It is all right this time,' for the Judge had 
been his classmate in Edinburgh University twenty-flve y<»ars before. When sentence 
was pronounced, it was five pounds sterling, the limit of the law for the misdemeanor 
charged, and the culprit was sorely disappointed as he was led away to prison. But 



768 CHRISTOLOGY^ OB THE IX>CTKI2fE OF BEDEMFTIOK. 

the Juflge went at onco ami paid the floe, telling tbe clerlE to write the maD's discharge. 
This the Ju'Iku delivered In pcreoa, explaining that tlie demands of the law must be 
met, and having been met, tkie man was free.** 

(c) That there caa be no real propitiatkni, siiioe the jndge and the sacrL 
fioe are one. — We answer that this objection ignores the existence of per- 
sonal relations within the diyine nature, and the fact that the God-man is 
diHtingnishable from God. The satisfaction is grounded in the distinction 
of perfKiHs in the Godhead ; while the love in which it originates belongs 
to the unity of the divine essence. 

The satisfaction is not rendered to a part of tlie Godhead, for the whole Godhead is 
in the Father, in a certain manner; as omnipreeenoe — tottis in omni parU, So the 
ofTerlnflT is perfect, because the whole Godhead is also in Christ (X C«. 5:19<- "M vaaii 
Ghriil nenciliag tk« wcrU uto Uvilf " V Lyman Abbott says that the word ^ propitiate *' is 
used io the New Testament only in the middle voice, to show that God propitiates 
himself. Lyttelton, in Lux Mundi, 302 ~*^ The Atonement is undoubtedly a mystery, 
but all forf^venesB is a m3^tery. It avails to lift the load of guilt that presses upon an 
offender. A change passes over him that can only be described as regenerative, life- 
giving ; and thus the assurance of pardon, however conveyed, may be said to obliterate 
in some degree the consequences of tlie past. 810— Christ bore sufferings, not that we 
might be freed from them, for we have deserved them, but that we might be enabled 
to bear them, as he did, victoriously and in unbroken miion with God." 

{d) That the suffering of the innocent for the guiltj is not an execution 
of justice, but an act of manifest injustice. — We answer, that this is true 
only ux>on the supposition that the Son bears the penalty of our sins, not 
voluntarily, but compulsorily ; or upon the supposition that one who is 
personally innocent can in no way become involved in the guilt and x)enaltj 
of others, — both of them hypotheses contrary to Scripture and to fact 

The mjTstery of tbe atonement lies in the fact of unmerited sufferings on the part of 
Christ. Over agHinst this stands the corresponding mystery of unmerited pardon to 
believers. We have attempted to show that, while Christ was personally innocent, he 
was so involved with others in the consequences of the Fall, that the guilt and penalty 
of the race belonged to him to bear. When we discuss the doctrine of Justification, we 
shall see that, by a similar union of the believer with Christ, Chilst's Justification 
becomes ours. 

To one who believes in Christ as the immanent God, the life of humanity, the Crea- 
tor and Upholder of mankind, the bearing by Christ of the Just punishment of human 
sin seems ineWtable. The very laws of nature are only the manifestation of his holi- 
ness, and he who thus reveals God is also subject to God's law. The historical proceiM 
which culminated on Calvary was the manifestation of an age-long suffering endured 
by Christ on account of his connection with the race from the very first moment 
of their sin. A. H. Strong, Ctuist in Creation, 80-63 —** A God of love and holiness 
must Ije a (>od of suffering Just so certainly as there is sin. Paul declares that ho fills 
up "Uut which is Ucking of th« afflictioDS of Christ .... for hit bodj't Mke, which is the eharch " ( OoL 1 :24) ; 
in other words, Christ still suffers in the believers who are his body. The historical suf- 
fering indeed is ended ; the agony of Golgotha is finished ; the days when Joy was 
swallowed up insorn)w are past; death has no more dominion over our Lord. Butsorrow 
for sin is not ended ; it still continues and will continue so long as sin exists. But it 
does not now militate against Christ's blessedness, because the sorrow is overbalanced 
and overborne by the infinite knowledge and glory of his divine nature. Bushncll and 
Boecher were right when they maintained that suffering for sin was the natural con- 
sequence of Christ's relation to the sinning creation. They were wrong in mistaking 
the nature of that suf^Tering and in not seeing that the constitution of things which 
necessitates it, since it is the expression of God's holiness, gives that suffering a penal 
character and makes Christ a substitutionary offering for the sins of the world." 

( 6 ) That there can be no transfer of punishment or merit, since these 
are personal — We answer that the idea of representation and suretyship 



OBJECnOKS TO THB ETHICAL THEORY. 760 

IB common in hnman Rocicty and government ; and that such representa- 
tion and Bnretjship are inevitable, wherever there is commnnity of life 
between the innocent and the gnilfy. When Christ took onr nature, he 
oonld not do otherwise than take onr responsibilities also. 

Christ became reepoosiblc for the humanity with which he was organically one. 
Both poets and historiana have recognizfcl the propriety of one member of a house, or 
a race, answering for another. Antigone expiates the crime of her house. Marcus 
Cortius holds himself ready to die for his nation. Louis XVI has been called a **8aori- 
llolal lamb,*^ offered up for the crimes of his race. So Christ*s sacrifice is of benefit to 
the whole family of man, betause he is one with that family. But here is the limita- 
tion also. It does not extend to angels, because he took not on him the nature of 
angels (IUb.S:16~*ForTmljMleftb«Aiig8]sdotkbttAk«holibatbttakMhboldoftt«M0dofilu«ham 

**A strange thing happened recently in one of our courts of Justice. A young man 
WM asked why the extreme penalty should not be passed upon him. At that moment, 
a gray-haired man, his face furrowed with sorrow, stepped into the prisoner's box 
rnihlndered, placed his hand afft'ctionately upon the culprit's shoulder, and said: 
*Tour honor, we have nothing to say. The verdict which has been found against us 
isjnsL We have only to ask for mercy.' 'Wei' There was nothing against this old 
flKtlier. Yet, at that moment he lost himself. He identified his very being with that 
of his wayward boy. Do you not pity the criminal son because of your pity for his 
■ged and sorrowing father ? Because he has so suffered, is not your demand that the 
•on suffer somewhat mitigated? Will not the Judge modify his sentence on that 
account ? Nature knows no forgiveness ; but human nature does ; and it is not nature, 
but human nature, ttiat is made in the image of Ood " ; see Prof. A. 8. Coats, in The 
Bzaminer, Sept. 12, 1889. 

(/) That remorse, as a part of the penaliy of sin, conld not have been 
soffered by Glirist. — We answer, on the one hand, that it may not be essen- 
tial to the idea of penalty that Christ should have borne the identical 
pangs which the lost would have endured ; and, on tlie other hand, that 
we do not know how completely a perfectly holy being, possessed of super- 
human knowledge and love, might have felt even the pangs of remorse for 
the condition of that humaniiy of which he was the central conscience and 
heart. 

Instance the lawyer, mourning the fall of a star of his profession ; the woman, fiUed 
with shame by the degradation of one of her own sex : the father, anguished by his 
daughter's waywardness ; the Christian, crushed by the sins of the church and the 
world. The self -isolating spirit cannot conceive how perfectly love and holiness can 
make their own the sin of the race of which they are a part. 

Simon, Reconciliation, 866 — ** Inasmuch as the sin of the human race culminated in 
the crucifixion which crowned Christ's own sufferings, clearly the Ufe of humanity 
entering him subconsciously must have been most completely laden with sin and with 
the fear of death which is its fruit, at the very moment when he himself was enduring 
death in its most terrible form. Of necessity therefore he felt as if he were the sinner 
of sinners, and cried out in agony: 'llj6od,mjGod, whjhutthoafomkeniiu?' (Hat 27: 46)." 

Christ could realize our penal condition. Beings who have a like spiritual nature can 
realize and bear the spiritual sufferings of one another. David's sorrow was not 
unjust, when he cried : " Would I had died finr thee, IbMlom, mj ion, ny ion ! " (S8uiLl8:d3). Mob- 
erly. Atonement and Personality, 117 — ^* Is penitence possible in the personally sinless ? 
We answer that only one who is perfectly sinless can perfectly repent, and this identi- 
fication of the sinless with the sinner is vital to the gospel." Lucy Laroom : *' There be 
sad women, sick and poor. And those who walk in garments soiled ; Their shame, their 
sorrow I endure ; By their defeat my hope is foiled ; The blot they bear is on my name ; 
Who sins, and I am not to blame ? " 

(g) That the sufferings of Christ, as finite in time, do not constitute a 
satisfaction to the infinite demands of the law. — ^We answer that the infi- 
nite dignity of the sufferer constitutes his sufferings a full equivalent, in 
the eje of infinite justice. Substitution excludes identify of suffering ; it 

49 



770 CHBISTOLOGY, OB THB DOCTBIKE OF BEDEHPTIOIT. 

does not exclude eqniTalenoe. Since justice aims its penalties not so much 
at the person as at the sin, it may admit eqaivalent suffering, when this is 
endured in the very nature that has sinned. 

The sufferings of a dog, and of a man« have different values. Death is the wageo of 
Bin ; and Christ, in suffering death, suffered our penalty. Eternity of suffering is unes- 
sential to the idea of penalty. A finite being cannot exhaust an infinite curse { but an 
infinite being can exhaust it, in a few brief houn. Shedd, Discourses and Essays, 307— 
"A golden eagle is worth a thousand copper cents. The penalty paid by Christ is 
strictly and literally equivalent to that which the sinner would have borne, although it 
is not identieoL The vicarious bearing of it excludes the latter." Andrew Fuller 
thought Christ would have had to suffer Just as much, if only one sinner were to have 
been saved thereby. 

The atonement is a unique fact, only partially illustrated by debt and penalty. Yet 
the terms ' purchase ' and * ransom' are Scriptural, and mean simply that the justice 
of Ood punishes sin as it deserves ; and that, having determined what is deserved, Ood 
cannot change. See Owen, quoted in Campbell on Atonement, 68, 69. Christ's sacrifice, 
since it is absolutely infinite, can have nothing added to it. If Christ's sacrifice satis- 
fies the Judge of all, it may well satisfy us. 

( A ) That if Christ's passive obedience made satis&otion to the divine 
justice, then his active obedience was superfluous.— We answer that the 
active obedience and the passive obedience are inseparable. The latter is 
essential to the former ; and both are needed to secure for the sinner, on 
the one hand, pardon, and, on the other hand, that which goes beyond 
pardon, namely, restoration to the divine favor. The objection holds only 
against a superficial and external view of the atonement. 

For more full exposition of this point, see our treatment of Justification ; and also, 
Owen, in Works, 6 : 176-804. Both the active and the passive obedience of Christ are 
insisted on by the apostle PauL Opposition to the Pauline theology is opposition to 
the gospel of Christ. Charles Cuthbert Hall, Universal Elements of the Christian 
fieligion, 140—'* The effects of this are already appearing in the impoverished religious 
values of the sermons produced by the younger generation of preachers, and the 
deplorable decline of spiritual life and knowledge in many churches. Besults open to 
observation show that the movement to simplify the Christian essence by discarding 
the theology of St. Paul easily carries the teaching of the Christian pulpit to a position 
where, for those who submit to that teaching, the characteristic experiences of the 
Christian life became practically impossible. The Christian sense of sin ; Christian 
penitence at the foot of the Cross; Christian faith in an atoning Savior; Christian 
peace with God through the mediation of Jesus Christ —these and other experiences, 
which were the very life of apostles and apostolic souls, fade from the view of the 
ministry, have no meaning for the younger generation." 

{i) That the doctrine is immoral in its practical tendencies, since 
Christ's obedience takes the place of ours, and renders ours unnecessary. — 
We answer that the objection ignores not only the method by which the 
benefits of the atonement are appropriated, namely, repentance and faith, 
but also the regenerating and sanctifying power bestowed upon all who 
believe. Faith in the atonement docs not induce license, but ''works by 
love"(C3^ 5 : 6) and "cleanses the heart" (Acts 15 :9). 

Water is of little use to a thirsty man. If he will not drink. The faith which accepts 
Christ ratifies all that Christ has done, and takes Christ as a new principle of life. Paul 
bids Philemon receive Onesimus as himself,— not the old Onesimus, but a new Oncsimus 
into whom the spirit of Paul has entered ( FUlemon 17 ). So Ood receives us as new crea- 
tures in Christ. Though we cannot earn salvation, we must take it ; and this taking it 
involves a surrender of heart and life which ensures union with Christ and moral pro- 



What shall be done to the convicted murderer who tears up the pardon which his 
Wife's prayers and tears have secured from the Qovernor ? Nothing remains but to 



EXTKKT OF THE ATONEMENT. 771 

ezeeute the tentence of the law. Hon. QeoTge F. Danforth, Justioe of the New York 
State Court of Appeals, in a prii'ate letter saj-B : ** Alttaoufirh it may bo stated in a general 
way that a pardon reaches both the punishment presiTllied for the offence and the guilt 
of tbe offender, so that in the vyv of the law he is as innocent as If he had never com- 
mitted the offence, the pardon making him as it were a new man with a new credit and 
capacity, yet a delivery of the pardon is esK^ntial to its validity, and delivery Is not 
complete without acceptance. It cannot be forced upon him. In that respect It la 
like a deed. ThcdelivcTy may bo in person to the offender or to his agent, and Its 
•oceptanoe may be proved by circumstances like any other fact.** 

(/ ) That if the atonement reqnire« faith as its complement, then it does 
not in itself furnish a C()m])lete siitisfaction to Ooil's justice. — We answer 
that faith is not the gn>und of our acceptance ^^ith Goil, as the atonement 
is, and so is not a work at all ; faith ia only the medium of appropriation. 
We are saved not by faitli, or on account of faith, but only through faith* 
It is not faith, but the atonement which faith accepts, that satisfies the 
justice of CKkL 

Illustrate by the amnesty granted to a city, upon conditions to be aooepted by each 
inhabitant* The acceptance is not the ground upon which the amnesty is granted ; It Is 
tbe medium through which the benefits of the amnesty ore enjoyed. With regard to 
tlio difliculties connected with the atonement, we may say, in conclusion, with Bishop 
Butler: **If the Scripture has, as surely it has, loft this matter of the satisfaction of 
Christ mysterious, left somewhat in it unrovealod, all conjectures about it must Ikn if 
not evidently al«urd, yet at Ictist uncertain. Nor has any one; reason to complain for 
want of further information, unless hecan show his claim to it.'* While we cannotsay 
with President Steams : " Oirist's work removed the hindrances in the eternal Justice 
of the universe to the i>ardon of the sinner, but hmr we cannot tell '* — cannot say this, 
because we believe the main outlines of the plan of salvation to bo revealed in Script- 
ure— yet we grant that many questions remain unsolved. But, as bread nourishes 
even those who know nothing of its chemical constituents, or of the method of Its 
digestion and assimilation, so the atonement of Christ saves thorn? who accept it, even 
though they do not know how it saves them. Balfour, Foundations of Belief, S01-207~ 
** Heat was once thought to be a form of matter; now it is regarded as a mode of 
motion. We can get the good of it^ whichever theory we adopt, or even if we have 
no theory. So we may get the good of re<'onoillation with Ood, oven though we differ 
as to our theory of the Atonement.'* — " One of the Roman Emperors commanded his 
fleet to bring from Alexandria sand for the arena, altliough his people at Home were 
Tisited with famine. But a certain shipmaster declared that, whatever the emperor 
commanded, his ship should bring wheat. So, wliatever sand others may bring to 
starving human souls, let us bring to them the wheat of the gospel— the substitution- 
ary atonement of Jesus Christ.** For answers to objections, see Philippi, Glaubens- 
lehre, iv, 2:156-180; Crawford, Atonement, 384-468; Hodge, Syst. TheoU 2:6S6-643; 
Baird, Elohim Revoalod, 623 hq^ Wm. Thomson, Tho Atoning Work of Christ ; Hop- 
kins, Works, 1 : 321. 

E. The Extent of the Atonement 

The Scriptures represent the atonement rh having been made for all men, 
and as sufficient for tlie salvation of all. Not tho a(oncmen(. therefore is 
limited, but the appllcatiati of the atonement through tho work of the 
Holy Spirit 

U];)on this principle of a universal atonement, but a special application 
of it to the elect, we must interpret such passages as Ei^li. 1 : 4, 7 ; 2 Tinu 
1:9, 10; John 17 : 9, 20, 24 — asserting a special efficacy of the atone- 
ment in the case of the elect ; and also such ];)assages as 2 Pet 2 : 1 ; 1 John 
2:2; Tim. 2 : 6 ; 4 : 10 ; Tit 2 : 11— asserting that the death of Christ 
is for alL 

Passaires asserting special efBcacy of the atonement, in the case of the elect, are the 
following : Kpl^ 1:4- "gIwm oi in liim before the fbondation of the vurid, that we ihoold be ho^ tad witbaul 



772 CHRISTOLOOY, OB THE DOCTRIKE OP BEDEMFTIOK. 



Umiih brfm Ub ia l*Ta " ; 7 ->«ia vkB vt km tv nd»yti« ftif^ kb Uati tkt lrgit«Mi of «or tn^ 
|tMitMnrii>CteU«hck«orkisgraM;" 2 TiiL 1 : t. iO — God " vko Mved ■!» aai oJM «s vitk a liol j olliBg, 
■St aooviiiif toosr wks, b«t Meoriiig to kit own |vrpan ud prao% ^kk vu prn u im Gkriit kna bdfan 
tuMt flvul, b«t katk nov beM aaaitetid by tkt tffmxjag of ov StTior Ckhit imu, vko abduM dMtk, ud 
bmgktliliBBdiBMrtoIitjtoligkttkroagktk«g«ipil'*;MBl7:9— ''I pnj lor tkm: Ipny not for tk« vorid, 
bit ftr tkM vkoBtboakastKiTti bo"; 20 —"UitkflribrtkMi only doIpnj.bat for tkom ate tka boUoTo on bo 
tki«sktkitrv«4'';24--''Pktk«.tkatvkkktko«kaikgiTnM^Iteiratkatvk«nIaii, tkoy abo say b« vitk 
■o; tkattkfjBaybohoUBygkij.vkiektboakaitgiTMML'* 

PaoBa^es wsaertlng that the death of Christ is for all are the foUowinfir : 2 P«t 2 : 1 — 
**fclM taKkon, vbo ikaU priTily briaf ia tetnctiTo konM. dM/iag ona tkt Hastflr t^ boogkt tkom"; 1 Joka 
1:2— "aaikoistkopropitiatioBfflroariiBS; and not far oon onl j, bat alio far tko vkole vorld"; l&a. 2:6 — 
Christ Jesus^vkoKaTokiaMlfarumfflraU"; 4:10— "tkoUTJa; God. vkoistkoaaTiartfaUBaa^spMaUy 
irtkaMtkalboli«t«";Tit2:ll— *'FortkogTaeoor6odkatkappflarod.brii«iBf salTatkA to aU mnT Rob. 3:22 
( A. V. >— "oato all and apon aU tktai tkat boiioTo"- has sometimes been interpreted as meaningr 
** unto all men^ and upon all believers ** ( <k — destination : iwi « extent ). But the Rev. 
Vers, omits the words "and spaa all," and Meyer, who retains the words, remarks that 
Tovf vurrtvorrof belongs to wirrai in both instances. 

Unconscious participation in the atonement of Christ, by virtue of our common 
humanity in him, makes us the heirs of much temporal blessing. Conscious participa^ 
tion in the atonement of Christ, by virtue of our faith in him and his work for us, gives 
us justification and eternal life. Matthew Henry said that the Atonement is ** sufficient 
for all; effectual for many.** J. M. Whiton, in The Outlook, Sept. 2a, 1897—" It was 
Samuel Hopkins of Rhode Island ( 1731-1808) who first decku^ that Christ had made 
atonement for all men, not for the elect part alone, as Calviuists affirmed.** We should 
say **as some Calvinists affirmed '* ; for, as we shall see, John Calvin himself declared 
that ** Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world.** Alfred Tennyson once asked an 
old Methodist woman what was the news. ^ Why, Mr. Tennyson, there *s only one piece 
of news that I know,— that Christ died for all men.** And he said to her : ** That is old 
news, and good news, and new news." 

If it be asked in what sense Ghrist is the Savior of all men, we reply : 
( a ) That the atonement of Christ secnres for all men a delay in the 
execution of the sentence against sin, and a space for repentance, together 
with a continuance of the common blessings of life which have been for- 
feited by transgression. 

If strict justice had been executed, the race would have been cut off at the first sin. 
That man lives after sinning, is due wholly to the Cross. There is a pretermission, or 
*paaBijigoTeroftk6iiiudonaafoittime,intkefbrbeannoeof God'* ( Robl 3 : 25), the justification of which 
is found only in the sacrifice of Calvary. This "pasnng orer," however, is limited in its 
duration : see ietol7 : 30, 31 — *Tke tjnua of igaoranet tkarsfon God onrlooked ; bat nov ko <*M«*"*KHh moa 
tiiat tkej ikoald all OTorjvkon repont: iniamn«k aa ko katk ^pointed a day in vkiek ko vill judge tko vorld ia 
ri^teooaneM by tko man vkom ko katk ordained.'* 

One may get the benefit of the law of gravitation without understanding much about 
its nature, and patriarchs and heathen have doubtless been saved through Christ's 
atonement, although they have never heard his name, but have only cast themselves as 
helpless sinners upon the mercy of Ood. That mercy of God was Christ, though they 
did not know it. Our modem pious Jews will experience a strange surprise when they 
find that not only forgiveness of sin but every other blessing of life has come to them 
through the crucified Jesus. Hatt 8 : 11 — "minj skall oomefram tko eost and tko wtA, and akall lit down 
vitk ibrabam, and Itaao, and Jaeob, ia tke kingdom of keoTea." 

Dr. O. W. Northrup held that the work of Christ is universal in three respects : 1. It 
reconciled God to the whole race, apart from personal transgression ; 2. It secured the ' 
bestowment upon all of common grace, and the means of common grace ; 3. It rendered 
certain the bestowment of eternal life upon all who would so use common grace and 
the means of common grace as to make it morally possible for Qod as a wise and holy 
Governor to grant his special and renewing grace. 

( 6 ) That the atonement of Ghrist has made objective provision for the 
salvation of all, by removing from the divine mind every obstacle to the 
pardon and restoration of sinners, except their wilf nl opposition to God 
and refusal to turn to him. 



Christ's work op intbrcession. 773 

▼an Oostenee, Dogmatloa, 604— *'On God's side, all Is now taken away which could 
make a aeparet Ion,— unless any should thcnisi>I\'€« choose to remain st^tarated from 
him.** The gospel message is not : God will fonrlve if you return ; but rather : God hcu 
■hown mercy; only iM'lk've, and it is your imrtion in Christ. 

Ashmoro, The New Trial of the thinner. In Christian Review, 26 : 345-364— ^' The atone- 
ment has come to all men and upon all men. Its col!zt<'ns1venc88 with the effects of 
Adam's sin is sei*n in that all croatunv, such as infants and insane itcrsons, incaimble of 
refusing it, are toved without their <'oiu)uiit, Just as the}' were involved in the sin of 
Adam without tboir consent. Tlic reusim why otluTH are not tuived is because when the 
atonement com(*s to them and u\Hm them, instead of consenting to Xhs included in it, 
they reject it. If they are iMim under the curse, so likcwlMi they are born under the 
atonement which lsinten<]4M] to remove that curse; thf>y remain under its shelter till 
they are old enough to ni>udiate it ; tla^y shut out its influences as a man doses his 
window-blind to shut out the lieamM of the sun ; they ward them off tiy direct opposi- 
tion, as a man builds dykes around his field to keep out the streams which would other- 
wise flow in and fertilise the soil." 

( c ) That the atonement of ChriHt has procnred for all men the powerful 
incentives to rei>entance presented in the CroHo, and the combined af?ency 
of the GhriHtian clinrch and of the Holy Spirit, by which these incentives 
are brought to bear ni)ou tiiem. 

Just as much sun and rain would be needed, if only (me farmer on earth were to !« 
benefited. ( 'hrlst would not ne«Hl to suffer more, if all were to be saved. His sufferinfA, 
as we have se<'n, wen; not the |>ayuient of a pecruniary debt. Having endured the pen- 
alty of the sinner, Jiutk« piTinits the sinner's disclianre, but docs not nHjuire it, except 
as the fulfilment of a promise to his sul«titut(\ and then only up<m the api>ointed con- 
dition of repentance and faith. The atitnement is unlimited,— the whole human race 
miffht be saved throuifh it; the ainAieatlon of the atonement is limited,— only those 
who repent and believe are actually saved bj' it. 

Robert O. Farley : " The prospt^ctive motlu>r prepan« a complete and 1)eautiful 
outfit for her ezi>ected child. But the child is still-born. Yet the outfit was pre|>an.>d 
Just the same as if it hud livfKl. And ChriKt'H work is completed as much for one man 
as for another, as much for the unbeliever as for the l)eliever.*' 

Christ is specially the Savior of those who lieliovc, in that he exerts a 
special power of his Spirit to procure their acceptance of his salvation. 
This is not, however, a part of his work of atonement ; it is the application 
of the atonement, and as such is hereafter to be considered. 

Amon^r tho8(3 who hold to a limittnl atonement is Owen. Comptx^ll (luotcs him as 
■ayinsr : " Christ did not die for all the sins of all men ; for if this were so, why are not 
all freed from the punishment of all their sins ? You will say, * Decuusc of their unbe- 
lief,— they will not believe.* Hut this un1)el]cf is a sin, and ("hrlst was punished for it. 
Why then do<« this, more than other sins, hinder them from partakintr of the fruits 
of his death?'* 

So also Turretin, loc. 4, qunE^s. 10 and 17 ; SymiuKton, Atonement, 1H4-234 ; Omdlish on 
the Atonement; Cunnnin«rham, Hist. Theol., 2:823-37U; 8he«ld, Do^m. Tlieol., S : 464- 
489. For the view presentiHl in the text, stH? Andrc^w FuUi^r, Works, 2 : 873, 374 ; 689-098 ; 
706-709; Wardlaw, Syst. Theol., 2 : 48iW»40; Jenkyn, Extent of the Atonement; E. P. 
Griffin, Extent of the Atonement; Woods, Works, 3:490-6Sl; liichards. Lectures on 
Theoloflry, 802-827. 

2. Christie Intercessory Work, 

The Priesthood of Clinst does not cease with his work of atonement, but 
continnes forever. In the i)resence of God he fulfils the second office of 
the priest, namely that of intercession. 

Heb. 7 : 29-25— "pricste nuny in nimber, bMtoae that bj death they are hindered from eontinoing : bat he, beeanie 
he abideth fbreTer, hath hii prieithood unchangeable. Wherefore also he ii able to are to the uttermost them that drav 
mar onto God through him, seeing he eTerllTeth to nuJuinteroessio&ibr them." 0. H. M. on Ex. 17: 12—'* The 



774 CURISTOLOGY, OB THB DOCTRIKE OF REDEMPXIOIT. 

hands of our great Interoenor nerer han^ down, as Moaea' did, nor does he need any 
one to hold them up. The nme rod of Ood'a power which was uaed by Mosea to smite 
the rock ( Atonement ) was in Moaes* hand on the hill ( Interceasion ).*' 

Denney's Studies in Theology, 106 — ^ If we see nothin^r unnatural In the fact that 
Christ prayed for Peter on earth, we need not make any difficulty about his praying* 
for us in heaven. The relation is the same ; the only difference is that Christ is now 
exalted, and prays, not with strong crjing and tears, but in the sovereignty and pre- 
vailing power of one who has achieved eternal redemption for his people.** 

A. Nature of Christ's Intercession. — This is not to be oonoeived of 
either as an external and vocal petitioning, nor as a mere figure of speech 
for the natural and continuous influence of his sacrifice ; but rather as a 
special activity of Christ in securing, upon the ground of that sacrifice, 
whatever of blessing comes to men, whether that blessing be temporal or 
spirituaL 

lJ«kn2:l — "ifuymaailB, wikaTsasAdToeatevithtktrUkw.icnBCkriittkarigktoou"; Rob.8:S4 — "II 
is imoM Ckritt tkai diad, jm. ntkar, tkil vai masd tnm th« dud, vk« is aft th« rigkt hud of God, vko aJsQ nOcetk 
intsroMdoB fa- as " — here Meyer seems to favor the meaning of external and vocal petition- 
ing, as of the glorified God-man : B»h, 7:2S— "crv liTilk to asks iataroMdoa fa* thos." On the 
ground of this effectual intercession he can pronounce the true sacerdotal benediction ; 
and all the benedictions of his ministers and apostles are but fruits and emblems of 
this ( see the Aaronic benediction in Ian. 6 : M-M^ and the apostolic benedictions in 1 Oir. 
i:8and2Cor. 13:14). 

B. Objects of Christ's Intercession. — We may distinguish (a) that 
general intercession which secures to all men certain temporal benefits of 
his atoning work, and (6) that special intercession which secures the 
divine acceptance of the persons of beUevers and the divine bestowment 
of all gifts needful for their salvation. 

( a ) General intercession for all men : Is. 58:12— "ko ten tko iln timuj, ui auido intonMioa iiv 
tkotnnsKnsscn"; lako23:34 — ''iadiosas sud, fktiwr, fafiro tkon; fa* tkoj knov not vkat \k»j do"— a 
beginning of his priestly intercession, even while he was being nailed to the cross. 

(h) Special intercession for his saints: Mot 18.19^ 20 — "if tvo of joa stoil agno on oirtk ss 
toBching UTtUng that 1h»j shall ask, it shall bo dono for them of my Father vhich is in hesTon. for ^«n tvo or 
thrao aro gathorod together in my namo, thon am I in the midst of than ": Lake 22:31, 32 — "SiiMn, Simon, behold, 
Satan asked to hsTi yoo, that ho might sift yon ss ^eat : bat I suido sapplioatioa for thee^ that thy &ith fail not" ; 
John 14 :16 — "I vill pray the Father, and ho dudl giro yon another Oomibrter " ; 17:9 — "I pny for them; Ipray 
■ot &r the vorld, bat for those vhom thoahastgifonmo"; iets2:33 — "Boing therefore by the right hand of God 
oi&lted, and baring reeeiTod of the father the promise of the Holy Spirit^ ho hath poored fbrth thiSi vhish yo too and 
hear"; Iph. 1 : 6 — " the glory of his grue, vhioh ho freely bestowed on as in the Bolorod " ; 2:18— "thnmgh him 
vo both hsTO oar aooea in one Spirit ante the Father " : 8:12 — "in vhom vo hsTo boldness and aooess in oonfldesoe 
throogh oar fiiith in him * ; Heb.2:17, 18 — "▼herefora itbehooTod him in all things to be made like nnto his breth- 
ren, that he might beeomo a meraftil and IkithAil high priest in things pertaining to God, to make pvpitiation for tho 
sins of the people. For in that he himself hath safferod being tempted, ho is able to snooor them that are tempted " ; 
4 : 15, 16 — " For vo hare not a high priest that cannot be toaehed with tho feeling of oar intnnities ; bat one that hath 
been in all points tempted like ss ve are, yet vithoat sin. Let as therefore drav near irith boldness ante the throne of 
graoe^ that ve may reeeire mercy, and may find grace to help as in time of need*' ; 1 Pet 2:5 — "a holy priesthood, 
to offer ap ^intoal saerJees, aeoeptable to God throagh Jesos Christ " ; Rer. 5 : 6 — "ind I sav in the nddst of the 
throne .... a Lamb standing, as thoagh it had been slain, baring seren horas, and aeren eyes, vhioh an the oerea 
Spirits (^ God, sent fbrth into all the earth " ; 7:16, 17 — "Aey shall hanger no more, neither thirst any man ; neither 
shall the san strike apon them, nor any heat : for the Lamb that is in the midst of the thnmo shall be their shepherd, 
and shall gaide them anto foantains of vaters of life : and God shall wipe avay srery tear frvm their eyes." 

C. Relation of Christ's Intercession to that of the Holy Spirit — The 
Holy Spirit is an advocate within us, teaching us how to pray as we ought; 
Christ is an advocate in heaven, securing from the Father the answer of 
our prayers. Thus the work of Christ and of the Holy Spirit are com- 
plements to each other, and parts of one whole. 

/ohn 14 : 26~ "Bat the Oomforter, eren the Holy Spirit, vhom the Father vill send in my name, he shiii teach yoa 
all things, and bring to year romsmbranoe all that I said anto yoa"; Rom. 8:26—''iad in liks manner the ^iht 



THE KINGLY OFFICE OF CHRIST. 775 

•V falrBitf : ftr w knov nol kav to pny u w» ea|^t ; bmt tht Spirit kiawlf ■akftk infraa woa far u 
vith gnuiiga vfaiek oanaot be «tt«nd " ; Z7 — "aad be tkat Muthfib tk« hMin kaovHk vkal u tht miad tf tht 
Ifiri^ btcHM W aakflU iatt— ioa for tkf ninti ■eeordiaK to tht Vill of God." 

The Intenx'flslon of tho IIf»ly Spirit uiay lie illu8trHt4<«l by the work of tin.* mother, 
who teaohes her child to pniy by puttltiir won is into his mouth or by sumrcHtinfr HUb- 
JectA for prayer. "^Thewhf tie Trinity is premmt in tho Christ iun's eltwet; tho Father 
bean; the Son advocates his oausi* at the Father's rivht hand ; the I1i)ly Spirit inter- 
oedes in the heart of the iKrliever.'* Then-fore *' When GtMi Inclimv the lioart to pray. 
He hath an ear to hf>ar." The ini pulse to prayer, within our hearts, is cvidenuo that 
Christ is luvf n£r our claims in heaven. 

D. Belation of GhriHt*8 lutcrcossion to that of saintR. — All tnie intcr- 
oeflsion is cither dinnitly or imliroctly tho iutGrci>8RioQ of ChriHt Chrifl- 
tums are organs of ChriHt' h Spirit To ftiipi>oRe ChriHt in ur to offer prayer 
to one of bis saintH, iuHtead of din'ctly to tho Father, is to blaspheme 
Christy and utterly misconccivo tho nature of i)niyiT. 

Saints on earth, liy their union with Christ, the frn-at hiirh priest, are thomselvos 
constituted Interei^tuuirM ; and hh the hifrh priest of old lM)re upon his bosom the tin^ast- 
plate engrraven with the nam<-s of the trilNii of Ldnu^I ( Iz. 28: 9-12 ), so the Christian is to 
bear upon his heart In pniyi-r iN'fore (i«m1 the interests of his family, tho ehurch, and 
the world ( 1 Tm. 2 : 1 — " I oxhort the^efo^^ flnt of all, tluit supplieatiou. j^jera, interoamoni. thaakigiTingt 
bt wmU for all mm"). 8(h> Syminirtcm on Inten-eHiion, in Atonement and Intercession* 
S66-;l08; MlUiiciin, Aseensifm and Heavenly rri(*st hcMxl of our Ixird. 

Luckock, After Death, finds evidi>ne<> of lH*lief in the interet«^i(m of the saints in 
heaven as early as th<> Hee«)iid century. Invoeati<m of the saints he reK&rds as 
beginning not earlier than the fourth c<'ntury. lit; ai>pn>vee tho doetnne that the 
saints pray /or tw, but n'J«'eis the doctrine that wo are to pray fo thrm, Prayc^rs/orthe 
dead he stron^rly advocates. Ilramhall, Works, 1 :r>7~ InvixMithm of tho saints is *' not 
necessary, for two n^asons : first, no saint doth love us so well as (^hrist ; no saint hath 
given us such assuraue<- of liis love, or done so much for us as Christ; no saint is so 
willing to help us as Christ ; and Mcrorif////, we have no command from God to invoc'ttte 
them.'* A. R Cave : '* The system of human mediation falls away in the advent to ouf 
■ouls of the living Christ. Who wants stars, or even the moon, after tho sun is up ? '* 

UL The Kinoly Office of Christ. 

This is to be diBtinguishod from the sovereignty which Christ originally 
possessed in virtue of liiH divine uaturo. Christ's kiugsliii) is the sover- 
eignty of the divine-human Redeemer, ^vhich belonged to him of right 
from the moment of his birth, but which waw fully ext^reised only from the 
time of his entrance upon tlie Ktute of exaltation. By virtue of this kingly 
office, Christ rules all things in heaven and e,arth, for the glory of God and 
the execution of God*H purpose of salvation. 

(a) With respect to tho universe at large, Christ's kingdom is a king- 
dom of power ; he upholds, governs, and judges the world. 

?! S : 6-8 — "I hftfe Mt my king .... Thoa art mj Boa . . . . iitt«nnost parti of the earth for thy poMestion " ; 
8:6 — '^Biadait hisi to hare dominion over the wcrks of thj hands ; Thoa hast pat all thing* ander his feet" : cf. 
Itb. 8 : 8t 9 — " ve M6 not yet all things subj^rted to him. But va behold .... Jesas .... crowned with glory and 
koMT " ; Kat 25 : 31, 32 — " when the Son of man shall come in his glory .... then shall he sit on the throne of hia 
^eiy : and belirs him shall be gathered all the nations " ; 28 : 18 — " ill authority hath bien given anto me in heayen 
aad OB Mrth " ; Heb. 1:3 — " apholding all things by the wurd of his power " ; Her. 19 : 15, 16 — " imite the naiiona 
.... role tham with a rod of iron .... Lng of Kings, and Lord of Lords." 

Julius MUller, Proof -text**, JU, wiys iiu^orrootly, jis wo thinlc. that " the rrgnum naturiB 
of the old theoloiry is unsiipiwrted, — there are only t\w rf'i/?iM//j (/ratUr and thoremntm 
(Koiia^** A, J. Gordou : *' Christ is now creation's S(^eptro-lK.'Arer, as he was once crea- 
tion's burden-bearer." 

( 6 ) With respect to his militant ehurch, it is a kingdom of grace ; he 
founds, legislates for, administers, defends, and augments his church on 
earth* 



776 CHRI8TOL0OY, OB TH« DOCTRINE OF BEDEICPTION. 

liik«2:ll — «'boratojoa....ft8aTiar, vko is Cluriil tha Lor4'M9:88~**BlMMdiitk«IJastkatflanfaii 
tke HUM of tjie lad " ; John 18: 88^ 37~ "Mj kingdom is not of tUi vorU . . , . TkoB mjmX i^ far I am a kii« 
....iTuyoM that is of tko truth hfluvtkmjToiot": lph.l:2S— "ho put all thiigt in nl^Joetia ute his foet, 
andgaTohiffltobehoadoToraUthi^ to tho ohnnh, vhioh is his body, tho fUM« of UmttitilklhaUinall"; 
loh. 1 : 8 — •« of the Son ho saith, Th7 throno, God. is fw onr and OTcr.** 

Doraer, Glaubenalehrc, 2 : 877 ( Syst. Doct, 4 : 142, 148 )— ** All great men oan be said 
to have aa after- intluenec ( Nachwirkwig) after their death, but only of Christ can it 
bo said that ho has an after-activity ( Fortvpirkuna ). The sending of the Sphrit is part 
of Christ's work as King." P. 8. Moxom, Bap. Quar. Rev^ Jan. 1886 : 25-98 — " Preemi- 
nence of Christ, as source of the church's being ; ground of the church's unity ; 
source of the church's law ; mould of the church's life." A. J. Gordon : ^ As the 
church endures hardness and humiliation as united to him who was on the cross, so 
she should exhibit something of supernatural energy as united with him who is on the 
throne." Luther : " We tell our Lord Ood, that if he will have his church, he must 
look after it himself. We cannot sustain it^ and, if we could, we should become tho 
proudest asses under heaven. ... If it had been possible for pope, priest or minister to 
destroy the church of Jesus Christ, it would have been destroyed long ago.** Luther, 
watching the proceedings of the Diet of Augsburg, made a noteworthy discovery. 
He saw the stars bestud the canopy of the sky, and though there were no pillars to 
hold them up they kept thetr place and the sky fell not. The business of holding up 
the sky and its stars has been on the minds of men in all ages. But we do not need to 
provide props to hold up the sky. 0<xl will look after his church and after Christian 
doctrine. For of Christ it has been written in 1 Cor. 15 : 25— "Fte ho mssi raign, till ho hath pot all 
his onomias onder his feot." 

*" Thrice blessed is he to whom is given The instinct that oan tell That God is in the 
field when he Is most invisible." Since Christ is King, it is a duty never to despair of 
church or of the world. Dr. E. G. Robinson declared that Christian character was 
never more complete than now, nor more nearly approaching the ideal man. We may 
add that modern education, modern oommeroe, modem Invention, modem civilization, 
are to be regarded as the revelations of Christ, the Light of the world, and the Buler 
of the nations. All progress of knowledge, grovemment. society, is progress of his 
truth, and a prophecy of the complete establishment of his kingdom. 

( c ) With respect to his church trinmphant, it is a kingdom of glorj ; 
he rewards his redeemed people with the full revelation of himself, upon 
the completion of his kingdom in the resurrection and the judgment. 

John 17 : 24 — "fkthor, that vhioh thoa hast giTen me, I desire that vhere I am, thej ilso may bo vith me^ that 
thoj may bohoM mj glorj " ; i Pet 3:21, 22 — "Jesns Qirist; vho Is on the right hand ofGod, harinffgoaotBto 
heaTon ; angels and aathorities and powers being made snbjeot onto him " ; 2 Pot 1 : /I — " thns shall bociohly snppliod 
nnto jon the entranee into the eternal kingdom of oor Lord and Sailor Jesus Christ." See Andrew Murray* 
With Christ in the School of Prayer, preface, vi — **Kot. 1:6 — 'suido onto bo a kingdom, to bo 
priests nnto his God and Father.' Both in the king and the priest, the chief thing is power, 
influence, blessing. In the king, it is the power coming downward ; in the priest, it is 
the power rising upward, prevailing with God. As in Christ, so in us, the kingly power 
is founded on the priestly : Heb. 7 :25— 'able to are to the uttennQot, .... seeing ho ever liTOlh to makt 
intoroeesioB '." 

Watts, New Apologetic, preface, ix— "We cannot have Christ aa King without 
having him also as Priest. It is as the Lamb that he sits upon the throne in the Apoo- 
alj'pse; as the Lamb that he conducts his conflict with the kings of the earth ; and it 
is from the throne of Ood on which the Lamb appears that the water of life flows forth 
that carries refreshing throughout the Paradise of Ood." 

Luther : "Now Christ reigns, not in visible, public manner, but through the word, 
Just as we see the sun through a cloud. We see the light, but not the sun itself. But 
when the clouds are gone, then wo see at the same time both light and sun.** We may 
close our consideration of Christ's Kingship with two practical remarks : L We never 
oan think too much of the cross, but we may think too little of the throne. 2. We can 
not have Christ as our Prophet or our Priest, unless we take him also as our King. On 
Christ's Kingship, see Philippi, Glaubenslehre, rv, 1:842-361; Van Oosterzee, Dogma- 
tics, 586 SQ. ; Oarbett, Christ as Prophet, Priest, and King, 8 : 248-438 ; J. M. Mason, Ser- 
mon on Messiah's Throne, in Works, 3:241-275. 




\ 



V. 



TU* bo«k ■• under n 

takan from the BtuldinJ 



*<"' -1 .. 












m ] . .! 


'■' 

























































j----- 








I